War was averted yesterday in Europe, London's Guardian reports. In an uncharacteristically aggressive move, the likes of which have not been seen in Western Europe in decades, a Swiss infantry patrol accidentally invaded Liechtenstein. In spite of Switzerland's reputation for skilled and reliable mountaineering, 170 soldiers accidentally wandered across the border separating the two states. After about a mile into the tiny principality of 34,000, the Swiss realized where they were, turned around, and went back home.

The patrol did carry arms, but had no ammunition. However, Liechtensteinians could have been forgiven had they felt threatened; each soldier packed a legendary (and lethal?) Swiss army knife. Fortunately, the crisis has been peaceably resolved, with Liechtenstein pledging no retaliation for the territorial incursion. Which is probably a good thing, since Liechtenstein doesn't have a military.

STR/AFP

Diplomats from five capitals emerged in Beijing this week with what appears to be a  long-awaited deal with North Korea. The trade-off? In the first 60 days, North Korea would give up its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for roughly 50,000 tons of fuel oil, or its equivalent in economic aid (Passport will have more on the specifics later today). The agreement comes exactly four months and four days after North Korea's groundbreaking nuclear test. Chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, who seems to have won over some fans in China, called the breakthrough "a very solid step forward."

Not everyone sees it that way. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been the most vocal critic, saying that he would be the "saddest man in Washington" were President Bush to follow through on the agreement. To Bolton, among others, the deal is nothing more than a reward for Pyongyang's intransigence, a Pyhrric victory that comes three years, eight nuclear bombs, and one nuclear test too late.

So which is it? For this week's Seven Questions, we asked Robert Gallucci, dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and the diplomat who signed the 1994 accord with North Korea, to weigh in with his thoughts on this very early agreement. His take? 

We now are in a situation where we’re saying, “OK, we’ll go step by step with [North Korea]. We’ll provide some of the benefits you want, and you’ll provide some of the restraint that we want.” So we are on a track now that could lead to the ultimate dismantlement of their nuclear weapons programs. It’s a new and better position to be in.

Check out the entire interview here.

That day happened to be Tuesday, which, hilariously, was also Safer Internet Day. Three of the Internet's 13 root servers—the brain stem of the World Wide Web, controlling traffic and site identification—came under sustained attack from a massive network of zombie computers. Hackers essentially tried to overwhelm the system with massive amounts of data, targeting servers operated by the U.S. Department of Defense and ICANN, the Internet's overseer. Analysts say the fact that the vast majority of Internet users barely noticed shows the resiliency of the Web. Meanwhile, computer scientists all over the globe were racing to overcome the threat and trying to track down its origins. It's still unclear where most of the remotely controlled computers used in the attack were based, but initial evidence puts many of them in South Korea.

Bringing down a few root servers would be catastrophic for the web, the global economy, communications, you name it. What's troubling about this attack was its size; it's the biggest sustained attack on the Internet since 2002. But the fact that the servers kept humming in the face of tidal waves of data designed to bring them to their knees is also reassuring. Hackers will need to up the ante next time.

(Hat tip: Security Fix) 

The posting of pictures purporting to be from Russian President Vladimir Putin's private jet set off a small furor in Russia today, and somebody may be in big trouble with Vlad's security people. The photos were uploaded to the Livejournal account of somebody nicknamed "hectop," and then later linked by ür-blogger Mark Frauenfelder at Boing Boing. They show that someone, if not Putin himself, really likes burled walnut paneling and gold accents:

Source: hectop.livejournal.com

I did some digging to try and verify whether these photos are legit, and here's what I've found so far. Putin's plane, an Ilyushin 96-300, was refurbished back in 2001 by a firm in Bristol in the United Kingdom known as Diamonite Aircraft Furnishings Ltd for £10m. Diamonite's preliminary drawing (pdf) from the time looks an awful lot like the style of the plane's conference room in one of the leaked photos, so they could well be real:

Kommersant, an online Russian daily, reports that after a Russian newspaper's republication of the photos, "Russian special services have shown interests [sic] to the blog which posted the pictures."

The person who posted the snapshots insists that they show Putin’s aircraft. He declined to name the source. Speaking to Kommersant, the man introduced himself as Yury and said he lives in the United States. Yury says that Russian intelligence services have shown interest to the pictures as he has noticed their e-protocols in his blog. “I emailed them to give information about these pictures,” he told Kommersant. “It’s up to them whether to give it to Voronezh Aircraft or not.

Voronezh Aircraft’s director general said the information about “such a top-security objective as the president’s aircraft ought to be closely guarded.”

And we know what happens when Russian special services show interests in individuals. What started out as poking fun at Putin's grotesque taste could well end up getting someone in deep trouble. As for Putin himself, it'll be interesting to see if the Russian public reacts to the photos like some Venezuelans did back in 2002, when they discovered the luxuriousness of Hugo Chávez's own private IL-96-300.

China shocked the world today when news broke that it blew up an aging weather satellite last week to test its new missile system. Back in October, space security expert Theresa Hitchens told FP of a "rhetorical space race" between the United States and China:

There are those in congress and in this administration who see China as the peer competitor. The Pentagon has, in its document on China's military power, highlighted China's research efforts in the area of space. It claims that the Chinese are probably trying to build anti-satellite weapons.

If you look at Chinese documents, they very much view the United States as a potential adversary in space. They see U.S. policies as trying to contain and block China’s progress as a space power. And second, they also see the value [...] of disrupting U.S. space capabilities in any war over Taiwan. So what we're seeing, particularly on the part of the militaries in both countries, is the development of a Cold War-like psychology.

The rhetorical space race may have just become a reality. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman reassures us that "there's no need to feel threatened about this." And today's Times story leans heavily toward the optimistic interpretation that China wants to jolt the United States into negotiating a ban on space weapons. That led Passport's Davis Bosco to write in, "Couldn't the NYT's reporters find anyone willing to offer up the less forgiving explanation: that China actually wants the military capability to threaten satellites?"

John Steinbruner, chairman of the Arms Control Association board and a leading expert on this subject, agrees with the overall thrust of the Times piece. But he told Passport that there may nevertheless be reason to worry: 

Why are the Chinese doing this now, and why are they doing it such a dramatic fashion? It's not their usual style. And that is itself both puzzling an disturbing. One would have expected a great deal more subtlety from them, and it runs the risk of validating the Bush administration's contentions. So, it's hard to imagine a benign logic that would lead them to this, and in that sense it's pretty worrisome.

FP contributor Jeffrey G. Lewis of Arms Control Wonk is flooding the zone on this one, so be sure to check out his detailed coverage. 

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty

The FBI just released a survey of 496 agents regarding "aggressive mistreatment, interrogations or interview techniques" they may have witnessed at Guantanamo. Here's a sample of what they found, in the report’s own words:

• On several occasions, witness saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor w/no chair/ food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves, and were left there 18, 24 hrs or more.
• [Air conditioning] was off so the unventilated room was over 100 degrees, detainee was almost unconscious on floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out throughout the night).
• Civilian contractor asked witness to come see something. There was an unknown bearded longhaired detainee gagged w/duct tape that covered much of his head. [FBI agent] asked if he had spit at interrogators, and the contractor laughingly replied that detainee had been chanting the Koran nonstop. No answer to how they planned to remove the duct tape.
• Rumors that interrogator bragged about doing lap dance on detainee, another about making detainee listen to satanic black metal music for hours then dressing as a Priest and baptizing detainee to save him - handwritten note says "yes"

(Hat Tip: Quizlaw)

Iran's oil industry could completely collapse by 2015, according to Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University. Stern writes in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (not available online) that Iran's failure to reinvest in its oil infrastructure is resulting in a 10 to 12 percent annual decline in oil revenue. Surveying their oil debacle, Stern believes Iran's desire for nuclear technology for power generation is genuine, and that the U.S. should just "hold its breath" until Tehran's position softens. 

What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.

The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself." 

With news of car bombings and sectarian violence dominating news out of Iraq every day, 32 deaths wouldn't even seem to make a dent in the toll there this year. But 32 journalists have died in Iraq since January 1, according to a Committee to Protect Journalists special report. That makes 2006 the deadliest year for journalists in any country the organization has ever recorded. What's more, the New York-based organization reports that most of these deaths are murders, not just accidental, caught-in-the crossfire deaths. 

It's more than just a troubling sign of the downward spiral in the country. It's a sign that the most important stories—good and bad—will be reported less thoroughly and adequately. Take the lengths CBS News reporter Elizabeth Palmer (no relation) recently said she and other correspondents have resorted to:

We now have the 15-minute rule: We never stay anywhere longer than 15 minutes."

Not even the best journalists can do their jobs properly with only that amount of time. The Columbia Journalism Review's November/December issue tackles the issue in depth, asking 47 reporters who've covered the country for their take on being a journalist in the most dangerous country for their profession this year. For a first-hand account of telling the story of the war, take a look at "Into the Abyss: Reporting Iraq 2003-2006: An Oral History." Here's a grim preview from The Guardian's Ghaith Abdul-Ahad:

So this debate accusing the media of not conveying the good news is such a — I mean do those people know what we are digging through when we go to Iraq? Just flying into Baghdad, driving, just doing the simplest, the basic, simple things, just being in Baghdad, existing in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous things you can do in your life, let alone covering it. So the effort we put into writing a story, any simple story, is enormous. And none of us, I don’t know any journalist who accepts taking such a risk just to manipulate the truth or write the bad news because you have this hidden agenda. People are getting killed on a sectarian basis. People are leaving their neighborhoods. Militias are roaming the streets; despots are functioning in Iraq. People are getting kidnapped; people are getting killed. Everyone’s getting killed: barbers, bakers, professors, officers, insurgents, Americans — everyone’s getting killed. So what are you going to write?

The administration is blocking the publication of a New York Times op-ed written by two former government employees, saying that it contains classified information. But Flynt Leverett, one of the coauthors, claims the real reason the article is being blocked is because it criticizes U.S. policy toward Iran. According to an official statement by Leverett, the CIA had already cleared the contents of the Century Foundation white paper "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options toward Iran" that he used as the basis for his op-ed. What was in there? 

These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive ‘grand bargain’ with the United States in the spring of 2003,” Leverett’s official statement said. 

About the above issues, the Century Foundation paper says the following:

• After 9/11 the Bush administration used the cover of the U.N.’s “6+2” framework for Afghanistan to conduct practically monthly bilateral diplomatic contacts with Iranian officials, whose experience and connections were vital to defeating the Taliban and installing the Afghan Interim Authority. These contacts continued until May 2003, with only a one-month break following President Bush’s January 2002 “axis of evil” speech.
• In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and before the start of the insurgency, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent a letter to the U.S. government (available here via ArmsControlWonk) proposing a framework for settling the disputes between Tehran and Washington. The administration turned the offer down.

While it may be classified, none of this is news. I mentioned Iran’s dislike for and help in toppling the Taliban here. In this article, Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes regular meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials from “the Taliban days” until May 2003 that, although held with a third party present, were essentially bilateral. And the Financial Times broke the story on Iran’s offer to discuss its nuclear program in July of 2003.

They think of everything over at Apple. Want to watch The Office on your morning commute? iTunes has you covered. Want to turn your run into a high-tech profile of your fitness routine? Nike and iPod can help you. But protect your privacy? That's a bit trickier. 

The new Nike+ sport kit for the iPod Nano, which launched earlier this year, uses a sensor to transmit information from a (specially designed) shoe to a Nano, and informs you how far you've traveled and how many calories you've burned. But what are you giving up for all that convenience and data? According to the BBC, more than you think: 

A team of computer science researchers from the University of Washington has scrutinized the runner's aid and found that it "fails to offer even the most basic level of user privacy." [...] Once activated the sensor broadcasts continuously and nothing is done to encrypt the signal to hide it from eavesdroppers... The unique identifier could be tracked up to 20 metres away outdoors and at speeds up to 30 mph.

The researchers tested ways to intercept the data from the transmitters using one's own receivers. They speculated that if stalkers or thieves were to employ the devices, the receivers could be used to monitor targets' activities and locations. What is even more worrying is that surveys conducted showed that "most people who use the iPod Sport kit turn the sensor on, slip it in their running shoe and never turn it off." Professor Tadayoshi Kohno, who is part of the research team at the University of Washington expresses futher concern:

This situation begs the broader question: as manufacturers continue to introduce other new, sophisticated technological personal gadgets, will these gadgets erode our privacy even further? More importantly, what can we do about that?

Apparently, when it comes to iPods, privacy is sold separately.  

As Blake noted in this morning's brief, former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar is convinced that he was poisoned while in Dublin in late November. He's equally convinced that Russian authorities aren't behind it, a conclusion in stark contrast to that of deceased spy Alexander Litvinenko, who accused Putin of murder from his deathbed. Gaidar (a contributing editor to FP) gives his poisoning tell-all to the FT today, and he has a theory as to who is behind his attempted murder:

After the death of Alexander Litvinenko on November 23 in London, another violent death of a famous Russian on the following day is the last thing that the Russian authorities would want....Most likely that means that some obvious or hidden adversaries of the Russian authorities stand behind the scenes of this event, those who are interested in further radical deterioration of relations between Russia and the west.

Ahead of a major Nato summit in Riga, which commenced today, President Bush attacked Nato members who are reluctant to send their troops into some of Afghanistan's most dangerous areas, charging that they must engage in "difficult assignments." Under the agreement to aid in security and reconstruction, several member states, including Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, are allowed to choose which operations they wish to undertake.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac has written a column in today's Guardian in support of boosting national contributions to Nato operations in order to ease Nato's reliance on the United States. Chirac also makes the push for a stronger European influence in Nato, and proposes methods of how and why Nato must adapt. Ahead of a summit that will likely be dominated by Nato involvement in Afghanistan, Chirac also offers his idea of what is needed in order to succeed in the operation,

To bring about the conditions for success [in Afghanistan], we must act in the framework of a comprehensive strategy, a reaffirmed political and economic process. The establishment of a contact group encompassing countries in the region, the principal countries involved and international organisations along the lines of what exists in Kosovo is, I think, necessary to give our forces the means to succeed in their mission in support of the Afghan authorities, and refocus the alliance on military operations. 

Though still under dispute, a growing number of American scholars, leaders, and policy analysts, believe that Iraq does indeed meet the standard definition of a civil war. Accordingly,

...[S]ome scholars now say civil war began when the Americans transferred sovereignty to an appointed Iraqi government in June 2004. That officially transformed the anti-American war into one of insurgent groups seeking to regain power for disenfranchised Sunni Arabs against an Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and increasingly dominated by Shiites.

Analysts also claim that with the amount of casualties suffered in Iraq, the war is on par with civil conflicts in Burundi and Bosnia. Nicholas Sambanis of Yale remarks,

It's stunning; it should have been called a civil war a long time ago, but now I don’t see how people can avoid calling it a civil war...The level of violence is so extreme that it far surpasses most civil wars since 1945.

The significance of such definitional disputes are not limited only to semantics. Titling Iraq a civil war may have significant impacts on American foreign policy - according to the NYT, acknowledgement by the White House would mean an admission of failure of the administration's policy in Iraq. Furthermore, it might also encourage a greater demand for withdrawal from the public, who may view the role of American troops redundant in the context of a civil war. Just today, MSNBC announced that it is now referring to the war in Iraq as a civil war.

Anxiety about China is a favorite Indian pastime. Whether it's China's proliferation of missile technology to Pakistan or its lead in the economic race, China's rise is matched with a rise in Indian apprehension. 

Exhibit A: The current uproar in India over a TV interview by the Chinese ambassador, in which he said that his country "claims" the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese maps have claimed the area as "South Tibet" since at least 1962. Negotiations have gone nowhere over the years. Despite being separated by the tallest wall in the world, the Himalayas, the two countries are still without a mutually-defined border. But last year the two countries signed a deal and relations seemed to be moving forward.

But the ambassador's statement is causing some Indian commentators like Brahma Chellaney to renew their charges that there's a pattern of Chinese expansionism at play. In his article, "Autocratic China becoming Arrogant," Chellaney writes:

[The ambassador's statement] brings out clearly that China is unwilling to settle the border issue on the basis of the status quo. Not satisfied with the Indian territories it has occupied, either by conquest or by covert encroachment, Beijing wishes to further redraw the frontiers with India, even as it keeps up the charade of border negotiations."

It's unclear whether the offending statement was a gaffe or an intentional attempt to put pressure on the ongoing border negotiations. But as far as gaffes go, it was a pretty big one. Witness some of the editorials it set off: "Tackling the Mandarins," "Why I remain wary of China," and "China: Not Trustworthy." The ambassador's timing is also terrible. Hu Jintao is scheduled to visit India later this month to discuss trade relations and the statement is likely to hang over his visit like a dark cloud. He was expected to raise the issue of Indian restrictions against Chinese firms with ties to the People's Liberation Army. India has refused to let one such Chinese company submit a bid on a harbor reconstruction project because the same company was also building a Chinese port in Gadwar, Pakistan. It seems Hu Jintao, who in the last year has done some stellar traveling diplomacy, will have his work cut out for him in India.