Obama, who signed off on the US special forces raid which killed Osama bin Laden last year, also enjoys a wide edge over his likely Republican election foe Mitt Romney on national security and foreign policy, the poll showed.

Eighty-three percent of those asked in the Washington Post/ABC News survey said they backed Obama's use of unmanned drone aircraft against terror suspects, which have caused disquiet among some civil liberties groups.

The president spoke publicly about the drone strikes for the first time in a Google+ and YouTube interview last month, and has presided over such attacks against extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Seventy-eight percent of those asked approved of Obama's plans to draw down troops in Afghanistan, despite fierce criticism of the president's strategy from Republican presidential candidates, including Romney.

Voters were also asked whether they approved of the decision to keep the Guantanamo Bay war on terror detention facility in Cuba open and 70 percent approved.

Obama vowed to close the camp, which he said was a recruiting tool for terrorists, shortly after taking office in 2009, but due to congressional opposition and complications in dispersing inmates has been unable to do so.

The survey contained the latest evidence that Obama's conduct as US commander-in-chief has wiped out the traditional edge Republicans have had over Democrats in national security policy.

The findings will likely complicate the efforts of Republican candidates to portray Obama, who last year kept his promise to get US troops home from Iraq, as feckless on national security.

The poll showed that Obama led Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by 56 percent to 36 percent when respondents were asked who they trusted to combat terrorism.

Respondents also trusted him more on international affairs by a 56 to 37 percent margin.

In previously released findings, the poll found that 50 percent of Americans approved of Obama's job performance the most since early last year.

Overall, Obama led Romney by 51 to 45 percent among registered voters, pulling out a lead based on improving economic sentiment which coincided with a drop in unemployment to 8.3 percent in January.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Washington (AFP) Feb 8, 2012 - Singapore on Wednesday urged the United States to be careful in comments on China, warning that suggestions of a strategy to contain the rising power could cause strife in Asia.

On a visit to Washington, Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam voiced confidence that the State Department accepted the need for cooperation with China but said that US commentary too often cast Asian politics in "win/lose sporting terms."

"Domestic pressures in the US and the demands of elections have resulted in some anti-China rhetoric in domestic debates," Shanmugam told a conference on Singapore at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"We in Singapore understand that some of this is inevitable in an election year. But Americans should not underestimate the extent to which such rhetoric can spark reaction which can create a new and unintended reality for the region," he said.

Singapore is a close partner of Washington and home to a key US military logistical base. But the city-state is highly dependent on trade and has sought smooth commercial relations with Asia's major economic powers such as China, Japan and India.

"It's quite untenable -- quite absurd -- to speak in terms of containment of China. That's a country with 1.3 billion people," Shanmugam said.

"It is determined to progress in all fields and take its rightful place in the community of nations. It will succeed in that venture," he said.

The United States, while looking to trim spending on its giant military to tame a soaring debt, has set a priority on Asia as rapid economic growth and the rise of China look set to reshape the region.

The US military has sought closer cooperation with the Philippines and Vietnam, which have accused China of increasingly bellicose actions to assert control over disputed territories in the South China Sea.

Shanmugan said that the United States should also look at other ways of engagement in Asia such as pressing ahead with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an emerging trade pact that involves at least nine countries.

It is "a mistake to focus only on the US military presence in the region, to the exclusion of other dimensions of US policy," he said.

President Barack Obama's administration has repeatedly said that it welcomes the rise of China and will try to find areas for cooperation. Vice President Joe Biden, ahead of a US visit by his counterpart Xi Jinping, called in a statement Wednesday for the two powers to work together on "practical issues."

Shanmugan did not cite examples of "anti-China" comments in the United States, but a number of US lawmakers have raised fears about Beijing's rise.

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Representative Dana Rohrabacher called for the United States to ramp up support for the Philippines to help the democratic US ally assert its claims in maritime disputes with China.

"We need to stand as aggressively and as solidly with the Filipino government in their confronting an aggressive, arrogant China -- expansionist China -- as we have stood with them against radical Islam," said Rohrabacher, a Republican from California.

Economic disputes with China have also come to the forefront.

In a recent television commercial that outraged Asian American groups, Representative Mike Hoekstra -- a Republican seeking a Senate seat in Michigan -- attacked his opponent with an advertisement criticizing US debt to China.

In the advertisement, a young Asian woman -- in a setting that looked more like Vietnam than China -- said in broken English, "Your economy get very weak; ours get very good."

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Washington (UPI) Feb 8, 2012 - Last week was another roller coaster ride for international politics. Violence in Egypt; looming civil war in Syria; and threats and counter-threats over Iran's nuclear intentions reverberated around the international security community intensifying the gathering sense of impending disaster.

In Brussels at the NATO Defense Ministers' meeting followed by the Munich Security Conference the next day, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta fueled this uncertainty by calling for a transfer of U.S. combat responsibility to Afghan national security forces in 2013, a year earlier than the promised 2014 withdrawal date.

Reaction was predictable from all sides of the spectrum. Supporters applauded the announcement as further signs of accelerating the withdrawal and pressuring the Karzai government in Kabul to assume its full share of the burden. Critics predictably denounced the statement as giving the enemy our timetable and quitting the field of battle before the Afghans were ready and able to defend themselves.

The tragedy remains self-evident. Despite the furor about turnover and withdrawal dates, that debate won't determine Afghanistan's future.

The U.S. and NATO Afghan strategy has rested on three foundations and the help of Pakistan. Security, governance and economic development form the three legs. Because the bulk of effort has been on the security leg -- to seize, hold and protect territory to create a safer environment for Afghans and to train Afghan forces to assume those duties -- the other legs have been neglected and won't be ready to assure Afghanistan's future for a long time to come probably well beyond 2014.

It is unknowable how long it will take, if ever, for these other two legs to take hold. Meanwhile, the overland supply route from Pakistan is still shut and relations with the United States are stalled at rock bottom.

Some observers say that should the Obama administration win a second term, withdrawal will be even faster. The good news is that a withdrawal will relieve pressure on Pakistan and as a result the insurgencies as well as widespread anti-American animosity will lessen.

Still, critics have a point -- suppose Afghanistan is unready to govern itself and provide for its people a modicum of security and prosperity including the ability to pay for its security forces. What then?

Beyond these possibly fatal weaknesses, cultural understanding has never been an American strength. We failed in Vietnam in large part because of cultural incompetence. The efforts in Central America to bring down dictatorships suffered the same short sightedness and ignorance. We launched into Afghanistan and then Iraq without learning those lessons. And we are paying the price.

Two Afghan truisms have been dismissed at our own peril. First, (virtually) all Taliban are Pashtun. But not all Pashtun are Taliban. Second, as the Soviet Union learned, its army had all the wristwatches. The mujahedin had all the time.

The lesson is that the Taliban "problem" is largely a Pashtun matter. Unless we address that as well as accommodate Pashtunwali -- the Pashtun code of conduct millennia old that rests all on honor, hospitality and revenge -- the outcome is predictable and time isn't on our side.

The only potential solution -- and one that may not work -- is a negotiated settlement. That means bringing in all parties not just from inside Afghanistan but its near and far neighbors to include China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in a major peace conference to settle Afghanistan's future because piecemeal activities and set dates to transfer responsibilities to the Afghans won't work.

Fortunately, an opportunity to accomplish such a conference can be created.

Toward the end of May, NATO will have a heads of government summit in Chicago. Planning for that summit is in process. Afghanistan will be a critical agenda item especially given the French decision for an early pullout and Panetta's statements. It is unlikely that the presidential election in France will alter that decision regardless of who wins.

Why then not tee up the idea of a major international conference on Afghanistan with the intent of finding a means to keep Afghanistan a stable and more peaceful as well as more prosperous state? That will mean including insurgents including Taliban. It also will mean engaging the Pashtun as well as other minorities. And while Pakistan remains a crucial part of any settlement, that can be done in conjunction with Afghan's neighbors.

NATO is entering its 11th year in Afghanistan. World War II, from a European perspective, lasted six years. The Cold War went on for nearly 45. If Afghanistan isn't handled properly, that war could simmer for far longer.

(Harlan Ullman is chairman of the Killowen Group, which advises leaders of government and business, and senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Sofia, Bulgaria (UPI) Feb 7, 2012 - The United States remains committed to the security of its "important NATO partner" Bulgaria, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says.

Clinton made the comments Sunday during an official visit to the Eastern European nation, in which she reiterated U.S. support for its security at a news conference in Sofia with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov.

"Let me say how committed the United States is to Bulgaria's security," Clinton said. "We are NATO allies. We take very seriously our Article 5 obligation for collective defense. Bulgaria has been an important, productive partner of NATO."

Thanking Bulgaria for its contribution of troops with the NATO-led forces battling Taliban extremists in Afghanistan, Clinton said the security cooperation between Washington and Sofia will only deepen over time.

She cited NATO efforts to develop a missile defense system in Europe as an example.

"With respect to security cooperation going forward, we want to make sure that we consult closely with our Bulgarian friends about how the United States and Bulgaria bilaterally and through NATO will make sure that Europe has the best defense in terms of missile defense and other capabilities in order to protect Bulgaria and all of our European allies," Clinton said.

Bulgaria's leaders had offered last year to host an advanced radar station as part of a U.S./NATO missile shield radar if Turkey refused to do so. However, Ankara later agreed to accept the installation.

The United States says the shield is necessary to protect the continent from the proliferation of ballistic missiles in rogue states such as Iran and North Korea but Russia opposes it without binding guarantees it won't be used against its own strategic rocket forces.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday no breakthroughs on the missile shield disagreements had been reached during a global security conference last week in Munich, Germany.

Clinton said in Sofia that Washington is seeking to expand military cooperation with Bulgaria, adding the country "has proven to be a very capable partner for whom we have the greatest respect and to whom we owe our NATO responsibility of providing defense."

The secretary of state also cited energy security as a key issue for Bulgaria, declaring Washington "will stand with the Bulgarian people and government as they work to be able to provide affordable energy that meets your needs."

The statement was interpreted as a reference to the potential for shale gas development in Bulgaria, which is seen by backers a vital way to lessen dependence on Russia for natural gas supplies.

The Bulgarian Parliament last month imposed a moratorium on shale gas exploration after a wave of citizen protests against the issuance of a drilling permit for U.S. energy giant Chevron.

Environmentalists contend the drilling process, known as hydraulic fracturing, is dangerous but a coalition of rightist Bulgarian political parties has demanded the ban be lifted, the Sofia News Agency reported.

Clinton said she would send Special U.S. Envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar to Bulgaria this week "to have expert conversations about how we can be more helpful in protecting your environment and advancing your energy security goals."

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Washington (UPI) Feb 6, 2012 - Amid the gazillion blogs, tweets, Facebookies and LinkedIn aficionados, it has become even harder to find reasoned and convincing arguments for what kind of military drawdown would do least harm to the United States' global posture. Even learned think tanks are tweeting.

Retired admirals and generals, professors and journalists, everyone is weighing in with elite newsletters and gap fillers as U.S. President Barack Obama does the Asia pivot (which is code for China) to reinforce the "western Pacific and East Asia."

"We're out of money. Now we have to think," said a British general.

In Britain, that meant, among other cuts, retiring its only aircraft carrier and three destroyers. And no more out-of-theater operations.

The United States is in the same predicament after spending $1.5 trillion in 10 years on what former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski calls two unnecessary wars, costly both in blood and treasure "that were falsely justified and totally unwinnable."

In Afghanistan, the Taliban enemy knows we are under domestic pressure to wind down the war and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is talking about a 2013 end to combat operations followed by a major drawdown coupled with an advisory and training mission until the end of 2014.

The Afghan army would need from $7 billion to $10 billion a year for five years in U.S. military assistance to continue to fight on its own. The chances of Congress honoring such a commitment for more than a year or two are slim to none.

A similar commitment was made to the South Vietnamese army in March 1973, when the last U.S. combat soldier left Vietnam. Congress ended all military assistance two years later -- and Saigon promptly fell to the North Vietnamese army.

China's geopolitical ambitions in the western Pacific are now the Obama administration's principal concern.

A two-war defense capability is more than exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan and an ocean of red ink. The new defense doctrine is one war and two small missions. More realistic would be U.S. Navy SEAL-type operations coupled with recent breakthroughs in robotic warfare.

A pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iran's key nuclear installations could throw the calculus into a cocked hat. Iran's retaliatory capabilities up and down the Persian Gulf and beyond would automatically involve the United States with its Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. The Navy's mission is freedom of navigation in and out of the gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, close to Iran's principal naval base at Bandar-Abbas, the only exit route for one-fifth of the world's oil supply.

Washington's political establishment is divided between those who see China as the next geopolitical threat that requires a major naval presence in the South China Sea and those, such as Brzezinski, who are opposed to demonizing China as another Soviet Union.

China has 2,500 "Blue Helmets" serving among the United Nations' 12 peacekeeping operations, most of them in the largest one, Congo, one-third the size of the United States and a source of constant crisis since independence from Belgium 52 years ago.

There are no U.S. troops among the 100,000 plus under U.N. command as they are mandated by the U.S. Constitution to serve only under the command of the U.S. president.

Some 6,000 Chinese workers broke ground in the Bahamas last September -- 15 minutes from Nassau airport -- for the Caribbean's largest gambling casino complex, which is destined to rival Macau, the former Portuguese colony now part of China.

The African Union's new Chinese-designed, built and funded, $200 million headquarters opened in Ethiopia two weeks ago, just in time for Organization of African Unity's annual summit. Ultra-modernistic in its design, it looks like a huge spaceship

In his inaugural address, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said, "China's amazing reemergence and its commitments for a win-win partnership with Africa is one of the reasons for the beginning of the African renaissance."

Jia Qinglin led a 100-strong Chinese delegation and handed over a $94 million check. He left behind a group of Chinese technicians to ensure the smooth running of the new OAU headquarters.

He also struck the right notes for the assembled African heads of state: "We maintain that all countries, big or small, are equal and we are opposed to the big, strong and rich bullying the small, weak and poor."

China's trade with Africa hit $120 billion last year, a 12-fold increase.

Almost 6 million Chinese workers are deployed throughout what was once called the Third World, including 1 million in Africa, on a wide variety of industrial and agricultural projects, developing future markets for Chinese products and importing all manner of raw materials.

Canada's Bombardier Aircraft manufacturer now sees China as a bigger market for private aviation than all of Europe.

China also informed Canada last week that it wanted a seat at the arctic table, which means it seeks the same status as the eight countries whose territory lies within the Arctic Circle. It will be Canada's turn to chair the group in 2013.

As a warning to China about its South China Sea ambitions, the United States is transferring 200 U.S. Marines to Darwin, on the northern coast of Australia, to be reinforced by 2,300 more by 2014, drawn from the 3rd Marine Division on Okinawa to form a Marine Expeditionary Unit.

"I am making clear," Obama said on a visit to Australia last November, "that the United States is stepping up its commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region."

Formidable though U.S. Marines are, 200 of them are unlikely to rattle too many cages. And Darwin is 2,300 miles from the capitals of South China Sea countries. China is also the largest trading partner with most of the countries in the region.

Over the next two years, the U.S. strategic moves from Europe to the western Pacific and South China Sea are likely to be more pirouette than pivot -- spinning on one foot, with the raised foot touching the knee of the supporting leg.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Munich, Germany (AFP) Feb 4, 2012 - The United States said Saturday that Europe remains Washington's security "partner of first resort" despite a US strategic pivot to Asia, but urged Europe to pull its weight.

In a twin effort to reassure Europe about the historic US commitment to the continent, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta delivered carefully calibrated messages of support.

Hot foreign policy issues such as Iran, Afghanistan and Syria also loomed large over the 48th annual Munich Security Conference, a gathering of world leaders, ministers and top brass.

In a speech at a roundtable talk with Panetta, Clinton pledged cooperative efforts for a united and secure Europe, mutual economic recovery, an "agile" security alliance, and a democratic Middle East along the Mediterranean.

The chief US diplomat also urged her European partners in the southern German city of Munich to work together in meeting "the opportunities that lie ahead" in the Asia-Pacific region.

"I've heard all the talk about where Europe fits into America's global outlook. I've heard some of the doubts expressed. But the reality couldn't be clearer: Europe is America's partner of first resort," she stressed.

Forced to make tough choices in tight budgetary times, the United States is shifting its military priorities to Asia and the Middle East -- even if it has pulled its troops out of Iraq and begins a drawdown in Afghanistan.

Reducing its military presence in Europe while tailoring it to future threats, Washington sees the looming strategic challenge in the Asia-Pacific as a newly powerful and assertive China rattles US allies in the region.

In opening the conference Friday, German Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere said Europe should not fear a renewed US focus on Asia and must increasingly look after its own backyard militarily without its historic ally.

In his speech on Saturday, Panetta said: "Europe remains our security partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the world -- as we saw in Libya last year, and as we see in Afghanistan every day.

"We are therefore deeply committed to strengthening transatlantic security partnerships and institutions, including NATO," he said.

While the US military plans to withdraw two of its four army brigades stationed in Europe in 2014, Panetta announced that a US-based brigade will contribute to the NATO Response Force, a 13,000-strong unit created in 2002.

The US military will also rotate a battalion-sized task force to Germany to take part in exercises and training.

But Panetta also renewed pressure on European allies to keep investing in defence and to pool resources as part of the "Smart Defence" initiative aimed at maintaining military capabilities.

Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said: "I am convinced the time is ripe for the EU to seriously take its responsibilities for the security in Europe and its neighborhood."

Meanwhile, Clinton and Germany's foreign minister Guido Westerwelle appealed for UN Security Council action to stop the bloodshed in Syria where an estimated 6,000 people have died in a 11-month crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

"As a tyrant in Damascus brutalises his own people, America and Europe stand shoulder to shoulder. We are united, alongside the Arab League, in demanding an end to the bloodshed and a democratic future for Syria," Clinton said.

"And we are hopeful that at 10 am Eastern Standard Time in New York, the Security Council will express the will of the international community," Clinton said, referring to vote expected at 1500GMT on a UN draft resolution that condemns Damascus' action.

Clinton later met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of the Munich conference in a bid to clinch Russian support for the tough UN resolution which also supports a transition to democracy in Syria.

But Lavrov told Russian television earlier that the latest draft "does not suit us at all and I hope that it is not put to a vote."

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Munich, Germany (AFP) Feb 3, 2012 - Europe should not fear a renewed US focus on Asia and must increasingly look after its own backyard militarily without its historic ally, Germany's defence minister said on Friday.

"Europeans should not look at the strategic re-orientation of the Americans with apprehension. There is every reason to be calm and confident," Thomas de Maiziere said, opening the Munich Security Conference.

As Washington looks east, "Europe must be able to assume responsibility, including military responsibility for itself and for security in its immediate neighbourhood," the minister added.

"Europe will increasingly have to take care of its own security."

Last November, President Barack Obama made a landmark speech in Australia where he shifted his nation's strategic focus to the Pacific.

"Here is what this region must know. As we end today's wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority," Obama said.

Last month, the United States announced plans to withdraw two of its four army brigades stationed in Europe in 2014.

There are some 81,000 US troops in Europe, according to Pentagon data released in September 2011, about half of them stationed in Germany.

De Maiziere said there was "no reason for complaint" about this withdrawal.

"Europe and Germany will continue to be the greatest and most important military location for US troops outside their country. We are seeing a shift from quantity to quality," he added.

Speaking at a US base in Germany, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also sought to assure Europeans of Washington's continued commitment.

"I want to make clear to our European and NATO allies that we'll maintain a significant presence here in Europe," said Panetta.

"Here in Europe, we'll have the largest troop presence than anywhere else in the world ... We want to maintain our presence everywhere, that's a very important part of our security," added the secretary.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST New Delhi (AFP) Feb 2, 2012 - India's planned purchase of 126 fighters from France's Dassault marks the latest stage in a huge military procurement cycle that has turned the world's largest democracy into its biggest arms importer.

The final Dassault contract is expected to be worth $12 billion and India is preparing further big ticket purchases over the coming years, including of helicopters and artillery.

In a report to be published next week, Jane's Defence Weekly forecasts that India's aggregate defence procurement spending between 2011 and 2015 will top $100 billion.

What is less clear -- and the subject of some heated debate -- is why New Delhi is so hungry for costly modern weaponry and where the country's strategic priorities lie.

Some argue that India is simply playing catch-up and using its growing economic wealth to effect a pragmatic, and long overdue, overhaul of a military arsenal still loaded with near-obsolete, Soviet-era hardware.

But others sense a more combative impulse, driven by the military modernisation efforts of its rivals and neighbours Pakistan and China, as well as the need to secure energy resources and supply lines outside its borders.

In testimony Tuesday to a Senate Select Committee, the director of US national intelligence, James Clapper, said India was increasingly concerned about China's posture on their disputed border and the wider South Asia region.

"The Indian military is strengthening its forces in preparation to fight a limited conflict along the disputed border, and is working to balance Chinese power projection in the Indian Ocean," Clapper said.

In order to secure the modern weaponry it needs to buttress its defence imperatives, India has little choice but to spend big in the global arms market.

Its long-stated ambition of sourcing 70 percent of defence equipment from the home market has been hampered by weak domestic production -- the result of the stifling impact of excessive bureaucracy.

Consequently, statistics from the Ministry of Defence show that India still imports 70 percent of its defence hardware.

"Where India has had some success is in joint ventures, and building foreign equipment under license," said James Hardy, Asia Pacific analyst at Jane's -- a respected industry publication.

"The licensed production route seems to be working and at this point in India's development is a good way of overcoming the bureaucratic challenges of indigenous production."

The proposed contract with Dassault envisages the purchase of 18 Rafale aircraft, with the remaining 108 to be built in India.

India's need for a multi-combat fighter is, in part, based on its geographical size which spans several operational theatres with wildly varying topographies.

"The aircraft they have just get worn out," said Hardy. "They want aircraft that can fly, land and take off anywhere from the Himalayas to the deserts of Rajasthan."

While the Indian Army has traditionally taken the lion's share of the national procurement budget, the focus has begun to shift in recent years toward the air force and navy.

In December, Russia handed over a nuclear-powered attack submarine to India on a 10-year lease -- a deal greeted with alarm and anger by Pakistan.

The Akula II class craft is the first nuclear-powered submarine to be operated by India since it decommissioned its last Soviet-built vessel in 1991.

India is currently completing the development of its own Arihant-class nuclear-powered submarine and the Russian delivery is expected to help crews train for the domestic vessel's introduction into service next year.

India is particularly keen to strengthen its maritime capabilities, given China's pursuit of a powerful "blue water" navy which Delhi sees as a threat to key shipping routes in the Indian Ocean and Indian energy assets in the South China Sea.

But many Indian observers reject suggestions that India is even thinking of getting into an arms race with China.

"The Chinese have a huge, huge lead. They are in a different league," said strategic analyst Uday Bhaskar.

"The gap in conventional terms and WMD (weapons of mass destruction) is so wide in China's favour, that it's just not valid to say India is trying to catch up or seek any kind of equivalence.

"India is simply seeking what it sees as a level of self-sufficiency, and is being constrained by its modest outlay and a decision-making process that drives everyone up the wall. That's why we top of the list of arms-importing nations," Bhaskar said.

China, meanwhile, seems content to gently mock what the Communist Party mouthpiece, the People's Daily, in December described as the "persecution mania" driving India's military modernisation.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Moscow (AFP) Feb 1, 2012 - Vladimir Putin has refused to host a top Chinese official tipped to become China's next prime minister due to his busy agenda ahead of polls putting a strain on bilateral ties, a newspaper said Wednesday.

Kommersant broadsheet, citing sources in the Russian-Chinese inter-governmental commission, the Russian foreign ministry and the government, said that vice Premier Li Keqiang tagged to become China's next prime minister, had wanted this month to visit Russia to meet Prime Minister Putin and outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev.

The newspaper said that Li had however cancelled the visit because the Russian government indicated Putin would not be available to host him due to his busy agenda ahead of March presidential elections in which the Russian prime minister plans to win back his old Kremlin job.

"There's so much fuss over these elections, there's no time for him," the newspaper quoted a government source as saying. Putin is facing the worst legitimacy crisis of his 12-year rule, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets in December.

The Kremlin also did not give a definitive answer as to whether Medvedev would be available to mee with Li, who has never been to Russia before, the report said.

A new generation of leaders must take over the reins of power in China within a year. President Hu Jintao will end his second five-year term as party head this year, while Li is expected to take over from Premier Wen Jiabao who will resign in 2013.

The reported cancellation of the visit comes after Russia declined Hu's proposal to conduct a joint forum of the two countries' ruling parties during Putin's visit to China last October ahead of parliamentary elections in Russia, Kommersant said.

Russian foreign ministry officials are hoping Li could visit Russia later in the year, the newspaper added.

Russia, the world's largest energy producer, and China, the world's largest energy consumer, set much store by their bilateral ties.

Putin has paid frequent visits to China in his capacity as president and prime minister since he took power in 1999.

In 2010, he hosted Vice President Xi Jinping who is widely expected to take over Hu's posts as head of the party and head of state.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST London (AFP) Jan 31, 2012 - A row has broken out at Cambridge University over a 3.7 million pounds (4.4 million euro, $5.8 million) donation by a Chinese foundation, amid fears it is linked to the Chinese government.

The new professorship of Chinese development will be established on March 1, funded by the Chong Hua Educational Foundation, to link research and teaching on the subject from across various university departments.

But a senior academic has expressed concern about the donation, at a time when links between universities and wealthy donors are under scrutiny following criticism of the London School of Economics for taking Libyan funds.

Tarak Barkawi, a senior lecturer in war studies at the prestigious university's Department of Politics and International Studies, told the Daily Telegraph that Cambridge's behaviour was "reckless and simply not good enough".

"Who is this Chong Hua Foundation that is giving us all this money? Where is the website? Who sits on its board? Does it have links to the Chinese government? These are all basic questions that need to be answered," he said.

"The lack of transparency, clarity and debate regarding the links between the Chong Hua Foundation and the regime is of very serious concern and raises basic questions about the relationship between donors and universities."

Another unnamed faculty member also criticised the donation.

However, a spokesman for Cambridge University rejected the criticism and said the row had been "whipped up by two embittered academics".

The university's website says the foundation is "focused on advancing education for the benefit of the Peoples Republic of China", and the spokesman said a thorough investigation had found "no connection to the government".

"It's a philanthropic gift for advancing education about China. They're wealthy Chinese individuals and it's perfectly common that benefactors ask to remain anonymous," he told AFP.

"There is no influence whatsoever on decisions about what the post should research, teach or anything like that. We retain full integrity and independence."

The spokesman added that donations from governments to set up university research posts were "very common", citing 4 million pounds given by India for the Jawaharlal Nehru Professor of Indian Business and Enterprise.

LSE was strongly criticised last year for its close dealings with the Libyan regime of Moamer Kadhafi, in particular its acceptance of a 1.5 million pounds gift from a foundation run by Kadhafi's son Seif al-Islam.

Howard Davies resigned as director of LSE over the issue in March, as international outrage was growing over Kadhafi's crackdown of the uprising which ultimately led to his overthrow and death.

]]> Thu, 09 FEB 2012 09:07:25 AEST Subscribe to our daily selection of space, military, environment and energy newsletters responseText http://visitor.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=0016gbbKsaiGSpQFojVO8ZoHw%3D%3D