Ahmadinejad dismisses Israel threat Ahmadinejad reiterated that Iran's nuclear programme was peaceful [File: EPA] US presses China on Iran sanctions Negroponte said the US will keep pushing China to back new sanctions against Iran [AFP] The US deputy secretary of state is pressing China to back new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program at semi-annual talks underway in the south-western Chinese province of Guizhou this week. The visit by John Negroponte coincides with the arrival on Thursday of Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Beijing for meetings with Chinese leaders. The Iranian embassy in Beijing has given few details of the envoy's visit, saying only that Jalili would brief reporters on Friday. Speaking before two days of talks with Chinese officials, Negroponte said Iran had violated an existing UN resolution by going ahead with uranium enrichment and missile development. He added that a recent US intelligence estimate showed only that Iran had suspended research into designs for a nuclear warhead. "We think it is important that there be an additional Security Council resolution because Iran is out of compliance with previously passed resolutions," he told reporters. "That is the argument that will be presented to the Chinese authorities." Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and aimed at providing energy for its growing population. China, which has growing energy ties with Tehran, has called for negotiations on the issue and continues to oppose further aggressive UN action against Iran. Negroponte said the US will seek further Chinese support at a meeting with other permanent members of the UN Security Council in Berlin next week. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is expected to discuss proposed new sanctions against Iran and other elements of a resolution with counterparts from Britain, France, Russia and China. US fails to isolate Iran from Arabs By Pakinam Amer in Cairo Iran's Ahmadinejad, left, and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah have strengthened ties and security co-operation between their two countries in recent weeks [GALLO/GETTY] George Bush, the US president, has urged Arab states to think of Iran as the greatest threat to their security, but his warnings are likely to fall on deaf ears in the Middle East. During a stop in the United Arab Emirates on his Middle East tour on Sunday, Bush called Tehran a "sponsor of terror" and urged Arab allies to confront Iranian "extremism". But Middle East analysts say the US president is too late as key American allies in the Arab world have thrown their weight behind a growing rapprochement with Iran. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst and professor of political science at Tehran University, said American fumbling in the Middle East has pushed Arabs to adopt dialogue with the Islamic Republic. He said: "America's wrong policies in the Middle East have ironically helped Iran's voice be heard more clearly, as well as Iran's political prudence that has kept it away from the conflicts in the area. "At this moment in time, the United States' popularity is at its lowest level among the people all over the Arab world, and Iran's popularity has grown immensely as the only regional power standing against the United States in the same region." Unprecedented moves For most of 2007, the US tried to push through a UN resolution to impose economic sanctions on Iran if it did not halt its alleged nuclear weapons programme. In depth Timeline: Arabs and Iran But Washington failed in its bid to isolate Iran in the Middle East. Not only did its Arab allies reject a punitive US military strike against Iran, but they were also keen on bolstering their own ties with the country. The members of the Gulf Co-operation Council countries invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, to attend their annual meeting held in Doha, Qatar last December while Egypt engaged in shuttle diplomacy of its own with Tehran. Often contentious issues between Iran and its neighbours, such as a string of disputed islands bordering the United Arab Emirates, were shelved for later "dialogue" in favour of building trust and rapprochement. Weeks later, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited Ahmadinejad to perform the Hajj in Mecca. Even Egypt has been keen on extending a friendly hand towards Iran. For the first time in 27 years, the two countries are discussing the possibility of renewing diplomatic relations and reopening Tehran's embassy in Cairo. In 1980, Tehran cut off ties when Anwar Sadat, then Egyptian president, hosted Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the deposed Shah of Iran. Iran also blamed Egypt for supporting its enemy during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. But last week, Ahmadinejad told Iranian television that if Egypt decided to restore full diplomatic ties, he would "put the new Iranian ambassador on the next plane to Cairo". Street name changed Iran also caved in to Egyptian demands and recently changed the name of a Tehran street honouring Khaled el-Islamboli, the man who assassinated Sadat. Egypt's and Iran's foreign ministers have met in recent weeks [EPA] Fahmy Howeidy, an Egyptian scholar and expert on Iran, believes recent conflicts, including the Iraq war, have elevated Tehran's importance in the region. "For one, no one can talk about the Iraqi file without mentioning Iran. Iran is also involved in the Lebanese and Afghani files [and] it has connections with the Syrians, the Palestinians. Thus, if anyone wants to reach a settlement in the region, he should approach Iran," he told Al Jazeera. Mustafa Bakri, an Egyptian MP and opposition journalist, agrees. He said: "In the coming period, Iran will play a significant role in the Gulf regional security, perhaps even with the undeclared consent of the international powers. "At the same time, the Gulf countries would seek to assure Iran that their lands will not be a base from which any war against it will be launched." Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, earlier said that existing relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours should be strengthened. He said: "We believe the stronger the ties get, the more stability, peace and security the Persian Gulf region will enjoy and that is a crucial necessity needed by both Iran and its neighbours in the region." Marandi believes that the normalisation of Arab ties with Iran also plays to domestic consumption. "It's despite US pressure that Arab countries are extending a friendly hand towards Iran," he said. "The reality is that a lot of the Arab regimes have always been very close to the United States and some of them have been dependent on the United States. "It's for the benefits of these governments to strengthen ties with the Iranian government and be seen as independent." Role in Iraq In Iraq, Iranian influence - and involvement - is becoming pivotal to stabilising the country, five years after the US-led invasion that toppled the Saddam Hussein government. In late January, US and Iranian representatives are expected to sit for a fourth round of discussions over Iraq's security. Ahead of the talks, US generals who once accused Iran of arming and training Shia death squads, conceded that Iran has a constructive role to play in Iraq by curbing arms and fighters from crossing the border. Hussein Hafez, a political science professor at Baghdad University, said the US has tried to isolate Iraqi Shias from Iran since 2003. He said: "Iraq's Shia society is an integral element in the architecture of America's tie-up with Iran and vice versa. Iran is a major and influential state in the region. It is not possible any more for the American think-tanks and decision-makers to deal so naively and simply with a state like Iran." Hafez says Tehran's ongoing support for Shia militias, which he believes undermine US efforts in Iraq, make US-Iran negotiations "inevitable". "The Iranian-US dialogue in so many ways reminds me of the US foreign policy shift before its complete defeat in Vietnam; back then,the American strategy experts had noted that the US administration had changed its policies towards the countries of south-east Asia." However, Iraq is unlikely to benefit from US-Iran talks, he said. "Unfortunately, the US does not care about the interests of any of Iraq's factions. It is its own interests that it serves." Cautious steps While the threat of war between the US and Iran has significantly subsided since a National Intelligence Estimate report said Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, tensions remain high. Bush's Iran terror warning earlier this week was preceded by a showdown between Iranian gunboats and US warships in the Gulf. Iranians say such brinkmanship and speeches means that Tehran still distrusts Washington's intentions and is waiting for the US elections for any signs of a shift in strategy. "Iran is wary of the US policy change," says Marandi in Tehran. "I don't think that the Iranians really believe that this [US] administration has shifted its policy towards Iran and I think that they are waiting to see what the next administration will do." With additional reporting by Doha Al Zohairy in Cairo and Alireza Ronaghi, Al Jazeera's Iran correspondent. Gulf offers Iran nuclear compromise Prince Saud al-Faisal said he hoped the US and Iran would support the planned consortium [AP] Gulf Arab states are reported to have proposed providing enriched uranium to Iran via a multinational consortium in a bid to defuse Tehran's standoff with the West over its nuclear programme. Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign affairs minister, told the Middle East Economic Digest that the six states of the Gulf Co- operation Council (GCC) - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - would develop a uranium enrichment plant in a state outside the Mideast. The plant would also provide nuclear fuel to the region. "We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East", al-Faisal said on Thursday. Decreasing fears Al-Faisal said the project would mean Tehran could continue developing nuclear energy while decreasing fears that their plans are a cover for an atomic weapons programme. Your Views "America says Iran getting a nuclear weapon could cause WW3 but I think it's more likely that America would cause WW3 by invading Iran" Jack, Bangor, UK Send us your views "[We will] do it in a collective manner through a consortium that will distribute according to needs, give each plant its own necessary amount, and ensure no use of this enriched uranium for atomic weapons", al-Faisal said. "We believe it should be in a neutral country Switzerland, for instance". "Any plant in the Middle East that needs enriched uranium would get its quota", he said. Al-Faisal said he belived the US would support the proposal. "The US is not involved, but I don't think it [would be] hostile to this, and it would resolve a main area of tension between the West and Iran." He added that Iran was considering the offer. "We hope the Iranians will accept this proposal. We continue to talk to them and urge them not only to look at the issue from the perspective of the needs of Iran for energy, but also in the interests of the security of the region," he said. The six GCC states and Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya and Yemen have all said they want to pursue peaceful nuclear projects. Egypt plans nuclear programme Mubarak says Egypt will not import enriched uranium [File: AFP] Egypt is to build several civilian nuclear power stations around the country. Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, said on Monday that a decree to establish a higher council for the peaceful use of nuclear energy will be issued in the next few days. "I declare before you the decision to start a programme to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity," Mubarak said. He said the project will be developed in co- operation with "international partners" including the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In an attempt to reassure other nations of Egypt's peaceful intentions Mubarak said his country will not import enriched uranium, as tensions over the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea abound. The announcement came during the opening of a conventional power station in Cairo. NPT signatory In November last year, Mubarak stressed that Egypt did not need anyone's permission to develop nuclear energy, having signed the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The most populous Arab country now joins Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who have all announced peaceful nuclear ambitions. In Washington, Sean McCormack, the state department spokesman, said the US would not object to the programme as long as Egypt adhered to the NPT and IAEA guidelines. "For those states who want to pursue peaceful nuclear energy ... that's not a problem for us," he said. "Those are countries that we can work with." 'Transparency and respect' Mubarak's announcement relaunches a nuclear programme that was halted more than 20 years ago. A nuclear energy programme started by Egypt in the 1970s was abandoned in 1986 after the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. Amr el-Kahky, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Cairo, said while the announcement was not wholly unexpected it did come as something of a surprise after 12 months of silence on the nuclear issue. "Egypt has spoken to the United States about it, and talked to the regional powers here, explaining exactly what they need," he said. "They need nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes, for energy generation, especially with Egypt's energy needs growing year after year with the ever- growing population". El-Kahky said that Egypt's population of 76-77 million needs at least 10 per cent increases in power annually. "This is very demanding and Egypt has to live up to the challenge. The United States has never said no to that, as long as it is peaceful", el-Kahky said. India doubtful of US nuclear pact Singh's coalition is dependent on the support of leftists, who opposed close ties with the US [Reuters] India has raised doubts about a landmark nuclear energy pact with the US after domestic political tensions reached boiling point in recent weeks over relations with Washington. Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, told George Bush, the US president, that his government was having trouble finalising the deal as he faces fierce opposition from leftist parties whose support he needs to remain in power. The agreement, which has become the subject of an increasingly acrimonious feud in India, allows for peaceful nuclear co-operation and was meant to be a cornerstone of thawing ties between both countries after decades of icy relations. Late last week, Singh remarked that it was "not the end of life" if the deal collapsed. The doubts raised then were further magnified late on Monday when he told Bush while touring Africa that "certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalisation" of the deal. The BJP, the country's largest opposition party, was angered by the accord, saying it would erode India's sovereignty. The leftists in Singh's government insist that he must not proceed with steps to finalise the deal until the Indian parliament debates the pact later this year. Uday Bhaskar, an Indian defence analyst, told Al Jazeera the deal remained alive, even if had been put on hold for a time. Bhaskar said India's credibility was at stake if it backed away from the agreement, having already negotiated with the US on the issue. "India needs to be able to import natural uranium to its civilian [nuclear] program going. The options for India in terms of its energy mix would shrink and its credibility would be diluted." The final stage involves negotiating separate agreements with the UN nuclear watchdog and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a group of nations that export nuclear material. US optimism The White House, however, publicly maintains that the deal is still on the table. On Tuesday Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said they were aware of India's local politics but remained optimistic about closing the deal. In video Al Jazeera's report on the troubled Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement "India's a thriving democracy. They have work to do, and they may need some additional time on their end to get their part of this deal done," he said. "The president is willing and is very understanding that the Indians may need more for this, but no, it's not dead." Bush and Singh first conceived the deal in July 2005 as a way to bring India, a nuclear weapons state, into the international atomic mainstream in return for US atomic fuel and technologies for India's booming but energy-starved economy. The pact has also drawn heavy criticism from US legislators who said it could spark a regional arms race. India crisis talks on nuclear deal The communists insist the nuclear deal would make India subservient to US interests [AFP] The Indian government and its communist allies have agreed to meet again this month to resolve their row over a nuclear deal with the United States. The issue had threatened to pull down the government and force early polls. The decision to meet again on October 22 came after a fourth round of meeting on Tuesday failed to resolve the issue. Pranab Mukherjee, the Indian foreign minister, said that the meeting was held in a "cordial atmosphere." The meeting signals that the communists, whose parliamentary support keeps the ruling coalition in power, would not - for now - withdraw their support for the government Lalu Prasad Yadav, the raliways minister, said: "We will not let the government fall." IAEA says ElBaradei's, left, visit is routine, but timing of the visit added to the tension [AFP] The communists insist the nuclear deal would make India subservient to US interests, but the government seems determined to seal the accord, potentially its biggest foreign policy achievement. The deal would be a milestone in India-US relations. It would allow India to import US nuclear fuel and reactors, despite having tested nuclear weapons and not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has been criticised by many outside India, including by some members of the US congress, who say the deal unfairly rewards India and undercuts a US-led campaign to curtail nuclear ambitions of nations like Iran. Uday Bhaskar, a Delhi-based defence analyst, told Al Jazeera: "There was a determination India needs to be brought into the global loop of nuclear commerce, which it is not allowed to enter now." "There is a net gain for the international community and a net gain for India." Sonia Gandhi, the ruling Congress party's chief, met communist leaders on Monday night and said the government wanted to start negotiations with the IAEA. Media reports said the communists rejected that, heightening speculation that Tuesday's panel meeting could see the government and the communists parting ways. ElBaradei's visit The growing crisis came just as Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the IAEA, arrived in India on a three-day visit to speak at an energy conference, visit a nuclear research facility in Mumbai and meet Indian nuclear officials. While the IAEA says his visit is not political, the timing added to tension between the government and the deal's opponents. The Congress party has already started preparing for early elections, shuffling party leaders and announcing populist welfare measures to woo poor voters. After negotiating with the IAEA, India must get clearance from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that controls global civilian nuclear commerce. Then the deal goes back to the US congress for a final approval. India-US nuclear deal text released The deal will see the US share its nuclear technology with India [EPA] India and the US have established the wording of their civilian nuclear technology deal, with key provisions on fuel supplies and safeguards. India's opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which carried out nuclear tests when it was in the government in 1998, said that the wording, unveiled on Friday, was "unsatisfactory". At the same time, Anil Kakodkar, India's atomic energy commission chief, welcomed the deal, having previously expressed worry that it could stunt India's military programme. The text of the agreement, which took two years to complete, tackles controversial issues such as the reprocessing of nuclear material. The deal has also come under criticism from some Americans who worry it will stymie US anti- proliferation efforts, especially in Iran. Pakistan factor The agreement itself, by which the US will share nuclear technology with India, has come under criticism, especially from Pakistan, which has said in the past the deal would "enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons". India has fought three wars with Pakistan in the past 60 years, both countries have developed nuclear weapons and in 1998 carried out tit-for- tat nuclear detonations. The Indian government insists its nuclear relationship with the US will not alter the balance of power in the region. "The deal actually means the technology restrictions that India has been subjected to since 1978 have been lifted," Krishnaswami Subrahmanyam, nuclear and security expert, told Al Jazeera. "India in future will have access to nuclear technology and all other high technologies available in the rest of the world, and there will be no technology denial regime as far as India is concerned." Nuclear devices The text of the US-India agreement explicitly forbids the use of any transferred nuclear material for military purposes. "Nuclear material, equipment and components so transferred shall not be used by the recipient party for any nuclear explosive device, for research on or development of any nuclear explosive device or for any military purpose," it said. "In essence, India retains the right to test and the US has the right to respond" C Uday Bhaskar, Institute for Defence Studies, New Delhi The US Congress approved legislation in December that allowed US exports of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India for the first time in 30 years, a move intended to reverse sanctions on India for its nuclear tests. The operating agreement goes even further, allowing India to reprocess spent fuel under safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog. C Uday Bhaskar, from New Delhi's Institute for Defence Studies, said the agreement "respects the distinctive concerns that on nuclear issues that both sides". "It's a very fine balance. In essence, India retains the right to test and the US has the right to respond," he said. "There's no direct reference to a test. But the allusion is there. It allows a positive interpretation for both sides." Weapons tests The US Atomic Energy Act calls for the US president to suspend nuclear co-operation when a country tests an atomic weapon. But the text released on Friday makes no direct mention of testing and appears to sidestep the issue. "The parties agree to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation of cooperation," said the statement. The India-US deal runs for an initial term of 40 years but can be terminated by either party before that with a year's notice and can be extended by 10-year periods. The whole accord still has to win the approval of the US Congress and the Indian parliament. Bush signs India nuclear bill Bush signing the bill at the White House on Monday which makes changes to the US Atomic Energy Act George Bush, the US president, signed a deal on Monday in Washington DC allowing civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants will, however, remain off- limits. Bush said at a ceremony: "India will now operate its civilian nuclear energy programme under internationally accepted guidelines and the world is going to be safer as a result." The deal could be beneficial for US companies that have been barred from selling reactors and material to India. Treaty rejected But India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and critics have attacked the agreement. Critics say the deal undermines efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and could provoke a nuclear arms race in Asia by boosting India's atomic arsenal, the Associated Press reported. Bush said: "The bill will help keep America safe by paving the way for India to join the global effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons." The Bush administration said the pact deepens ties with a democratic Asia power, but was not designed as a counterweight to the rising power of China. Bush said: "India's economy has more than doubled its size since 1991 and it is one of the fastest growing markets for American exports." Many fear that selling India US-origin fuel for civilian energy use will free up New Delhi's indigenous uranium stocks for weapons. 'Natural partners' Bush said: "The United States and India are natural partners, the rivalries that once kept our nations apart are no more." Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, defended the nuclear deal, rejecting opposition criticism that it would lead to the dismantling of India's atomic weapons. He said he had some concerns about the legislation, but that they would be dealt with during technical negotiations on an overall US- India cooperation agreement. Singh said India would not accept new conditions and its nuclear weapons programme would not be subject to interference of any kind because the agreement with the US dealt only with civil nuclear co-operation. Earlier, LK Advani, the leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, said India should not accept US legislation, saying that the deal would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests in the future. India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and followed it up with a series of others in 1998. Advani said: "The primary objective is to cap, roll back and ultimately eliminate its [India's] nuclear weapons capability." Hurdles Several hurdles remain before civil nuclear trade between the two countries can begin. US and Indian officials need to work out a separate technical nuclear co-operation agreement, expected to be finished next year. The two countries must now obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. India and the International Atomic Energy Agency must also agree on an inspection plan. Experts say India has already produced about 50 nuclear weapons and plans to reach up to 400 in a decade. US backs N Korea nuclear deal Hill hopes to have Yongbyon disabled and the North declare its nuclear programmes by year's end [AFP] The United States has given its approval to a tentative deal in which North Korea will disclose all its nuclear programmes and disable its Yongbyon plant. Sean McCormack, the state department spokesman, said on Tuesday: "We have conveyed to the Chinese government our approval for the draft statement." Separately, the chief US negotiator with North Korea said he expected China to announce the deal, hammered out over the weekend in talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US, in the next day or two. Christopher Hill told reporters he hoped to see Yongbyon disabled and to have a full declaration of its nuclear programmes by the end of the year, including how much fissile material it has, as well as "a very clear situation on the uranium enrichment". Hill, who briefed the US president on the agreement on Tuesday, said the US anticipated having people on the ground in North Korea "heavily involved" in the final phase of disarmament. If approved by all six parties and carried out by North Korea, the agreement would mark a step toward the US goal of getting North Korea to abandon all its nuclear weapons and programmes. The US assertion that North Korea has a uranium enrichment programme sparked the latest nuclear crisis with Pyongyang in 2002. At the time, Washington said North Korean officials had acknowledged the programme but Pyongyang has since denied it. Hill, however, suggested that the two sides were making some headway. "We have had, I think, some intensive and productive discussions on ... the issue of resolving our concerns about uranium enrichment," he said. Nuclear talks produce N Korea plan Hill said the draft's level of detail required him to return to the US for consultations [AFP] Negotiators at six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme have tentatively agreed a "road map" on disabling the country's nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The draft plan follows four day of talks in Beijing between negotiators from the US, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas. Envoys called a recess to the talks on Sunday, saying their governments had to review the draft and, depending on what they decided, China could reconvene the talks in 48 hours. "We're into the nuts and bolts now of implementing denuclearisation," Christopher Hill, the chief US envoy to the talks, told reporters before flying back to the US. He said the draft plan "lays out an entire road map until the end of the year" for the North's nuclear disarmament. Under a plan agreed in February the five other parties in the talks agreed to give North Korea aid, security guaranties and other benefits in return for it verifiably ending its nuclear programme. Hill said the details of the plan made it necessary for him to return to Washington for consultations. Deadlines A copy of the proposed deal has not yet been released but Chun Yung-woo, the South Korean negotiator, said it set some key deadlines for North Korea and for the other parties to meet. He said North Korea reiterated its December 31 deadline for declaring and disabling its nuclear programmes and accepted that other parties would not be able to deliver all their promised aid within that time. Chun said South Korea would only have delivered about a third of the economic and energy assistance it has promised by year's end. And while the US also restated its intention eventually to remove North Korea from a list of countries it says sponsor "terrorism", the draft plan does not set a deadline for that to take place, Chun said. Despite the recess, envoys characterised the meeting as a step forward, with Chun praising North Korea for showing flexibility. China, the US, Japan, Russia and North and South Korea are trying to push forward a February agreement under which Pyongyang agreed to declare and dismantle all its nuclear weapons programmes in return for 1 million tonnes of heavy fuel oil and other assistance. The latest round of six-party talks had aimed to set final terms for the North's declaration and dismantling of its nuclear programme. Under the original timetable agreed in February, those terms should have been agreed to five months ago. The six-party talks have seen frequent stops and starts since they began four years ago, but if they are ultimately successful, the talks could roll back a nuclear programme that saw North Korea detonate its first nuclear device in October last year. Peace to top Korean summit agenda While some oppose unification, surveys suggest most South Koreans support the move [GALLO/GETTY] South Korea says establishing a permanent peace will be the priority at this week's summit in Pyongyang. Buoyed by apparent progress in six-party nuclear disarmament talks, Roh Moo-hyun, the South Korean president, said on Monday: "Many issues will be discussed but I will put priority on the establishment of peace on the Korean peninsula." "Without confidence in peace, we cannot promise co- prosperity and unification," he told a military parade in the central city of Daejeon, noting that the six-party talks "have entered a different phase". The two Koreas signed an armistice in 1953 but are technically still at war. Envoys at the talks struck a draft agreement on Sunday on the next phase of ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programme but called a recess for the respective governments to review the plan. But South Korean officials say they do not want to sour the mood by pushing Pyongyang on what they call "sensitive issues". So Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme and human rights issues are to be side-stepped when Roh meets Kim Jong-il, his North Korean counterpart. Criticism Roh may contribute billions of dollars to North Korea's economy. But critics have expressed concern that Roh may pledge so much in aid that North Korea will feel it can reject incentives offered by regional powers to stop its nuclear arms programme. During six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear disarmament, held in Beijing, envoys had worked to draw up a schedule for the country to permanently disable its reactor, in exchange for 950,000 tonnes of fuel oil. "The South Korean government had promised the US that inter-Korean engagement would be a half-step behind the six-party talks. But instead, it seems several steps ahead," said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Aid pledges Jeong Hyung-gon, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, said: "South Korea's economic co-operation is aimed at reducing military tension." "A peaceful peninsula has a direct impact on South Korea's economy." South Korea has lived under a military threat from the North, but it also fears that a sudden collapse of Kim's government, along with the prospect of absorbing its neighbour, would wreck its own economy. North Korea's economy has dramatically weakened, while its neighbour's has surged. Hit by massive floods and UN sanctions for conducting a nuclear test in 2006, the country depends on food and oil handouts. The summit - the second between the two countries since the peninsula was divided after World War II – will primarily focus on the possibility of unification. Slow process Officials have said that Roh might propose new projects to rebuild the North's infrastructure and develop joint economic zones. Most South Koreans want unification, but a recent survey has said that three in four want the process to move slowly. Kim Young-yoon, an economics expert at South Korea Institute for National Unification told Reuters that rebuilding the North's economy can be described as "unification on an instalment plan". "The most important thing in unification is getting rid of the economic gap." NEWS ASIA-PACIFIC North Korea 'off US terror list' Christopher Hill, the US chief nuclear negotiator, held recent bilateral talks with North Korea [EPA] North Korea has said the US is to remove it from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a move it has long sought to receive more aid and normalise relations between the two nations. The US has not confirmed the move, which North Korea says came during weekend talks in Switzerland between the two over its nuclear- weapons programme. North Korea has already agreed to close its nuclear facilities by the end of 2007. "In return for this, the US decided to take such political and economic measures for compensation as delisting the DPRK as a terrorism sponsor," a foreign ministry spokesman reportedly said on Monday. The chief US negotiator to the talks has hinted that Washington could remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism before it completely gives up its nuclear arms programme. But the US has not said it has decided to strike Pyongyang from the list, which currently also includes Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Aid ban Speaking in the Swiss city of Geneva, Christopher Hill, the chief US negotiator, said on Sunday that North Korea had agreed to fully account for and disable its nuclear programme by the end of the year. He did not say what, if anything, the US had offered in return for the latest pledge. Pyongyang was put on the US list based on the confession of a North Korean agent over the mid- air explosion of a South Korean passenger jet over the sea off Myanmar in 1987. The designation imposes a ban on arms-related sales, keeps the economically isolated country from receiving US aid and requires the US to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions. The North's spokesman said the Geneva talks had "laid the groundwork for making progress at the plenary session of the six-party talks" aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. North Korea has already shut down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon under a six-nation agreement reached on February 13. The talks also involve the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. UN confirms all N Korea sites shut Hill said Washington and Pyongyang were in "the same ballpark" on disarming by year-end [EPA] North Korea has shutdown all five of its nuclear facilities, the UN nuclear agency has confirmed, as six-party talks kicked off in Beijing focused on ending Pyongyang's uranium-enrichment programme. The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Wednesday the closure of four remaining nuclear facilities had been verified. Mohamed ElBaradei comments come after IAEA inspectors verified the closure of North Korea's main Yongbyon nuclear reactor on Saturday. "Yes we now verify that all the five nuclear facilities have been shut down," he said in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. The announcement marks the completion of the first phase of the February deal on dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons programme. Fresh talks North Korea nuclear deal On February 13, 2007, at six-nation talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to: Start shut down of main Yongbyon nuclear reactor facility within 60 days of deal Allow UN nuclear inspectors entry for all monitoring and verification Discuss list of all nuclear programmes and materials including plutonium extracted from fuel rods Declare all nuclear programmes and disarmament of all existing nuclear facilities Begin talks on normalising diplomatic ties with the US and Japan, and resume high-level talks with South Korea In return US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea promise initial shipment of 50,000 tonnes heavy fuel oil within initial phase The five nations agreed to establish working groups for initial and full implementation of action plan Additional aid up to the equivalent of 1m tonnes of heavy fuel oil to be delivered to North Korea upon compliance Part of the second phase would include working groups to deal with technical aspects of any agreement and improving political relations. The third phase would require North Korea to hand over fissile nuclear materials and other atomic arms infrastructure. In Beijing on Wednesday, the two Koreas, the US, China, Japan and Russia began exploring how to scrap Yongbyon and terminate North Korea's nuclear weapons potential in return for another 950,000 tonnes of oil or equivalent aid. The fresh round of six-party talks focused on ending North Korea's uranium programme, a major sticking point with the nuclear powers. North Korea on Wednesday told other nations involved in disarmament talks in Beijing that it was willing to declare and disable its nuclear facilities this year, the South Korean envoy said. "North Korea showed its willingness to declare and disable (its nuclear facilities) within the shortest period of time, within this year, or five to six months," envoy Chun Yung-Woo told reporters. The US and others say that North Korea has been secretly operating a highly enriched uranium programme in parallel with its plutonium-making facility at Yongbyon. Both materials can be used to make nuclear warheads. Pyongyang has never admitted to making the highly enriched uranium. US proposal Christopher Hill, the chief US envoy in Beijing, said there was hope of getting North Korea to agree to a disarmament schedule. Hill said he met Kim Kye-gwan, the North's chief negotiator, late on Tuesday to propose a timetable that would conclude the second phase of disarmament by the end of the year. "We all know that we've got a long road ahead of us with many steps," he said. "Maybe we could try to agree on getting these next phase things done in calendar year 07." He said on Tuesday that the North Korean delegation appeared receptive to his proposal, adding: "I think we're on the same ballpark." In February North Korea agreed to close the Yongbyon plant in return for 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, which began moving there from South Korea last week. The US state department on Monday said the closure had brightened prospects for a first-ever ministerial meeting of the six nations, a step up from the envoy level that is currently employed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has told Al Jazeera that Israel would not dare attack Iran, despite its successful test of a long-range ballistic missile. "The Zionist regime ... lacks the courage to launch any strike against the Iranian state," Ahmadinejad said in the exclusive interview on Thursday. Israel Radio said that the missile tested on Thursday was capable of carrying an "unconventional payload", suggesting it may be able to carry a nuclear warhead. But Ahmadinejad seemed unperturbed. "They are aware that any strike would be confronted by a very strong Iranian response," he said. "The Zionist entity, with all the support offered by the US administration and many Western administrations, is not lacking new weapons in its arsenal, but I believe ... it will not save it from its doomed collapse." Israel, Washington's staunchest ally in the Middle East, says Iran could have a nuclear bomb by 2010 and that an Iranian nuclear weapon would threaten Israel's existence. Missile test On Thursday the Israeli defence ministry said: "A successful missile launch was carried out within the framework of examining rocket propulsion." Israel is thought to be developing the Jericho-3 ground-to-ground missile that could have a range of up to 4,500km. "The Zionist regime ... lacks the courage to launch any strike against the Iranian state" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President It is also widely considered to be the Middle East's sole nuclear power with an estimated but undeclared arsenal of 200 warheads. "Ahmadinejad thinks of Israel in terms of ideological and theological grounds," Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's senior political analyst, said. "He thinks of it as a colonial state, he doesn't think of it as a sovereign state. He thinks of it as an ideology that is going to collapse like the communist Soviet Union or apartheid South Africa." Ahmadinejad's comments came after George Bush, the US president, ended a Middle East tour that was largely devoted to bolstering a campaign to isolate Iran, which he has branded a "threat to world peace". Ahmadinejad described Iran's nuclear programme as peaceful, saying that the widespread criticism was "political". "The Iranians did not deviate or adopt any unlawful course in its nuclear activities, all of our activities are in harmony with the international resolutions," he said. "They were transparent and from the very beginning we exerted the maximum co-operation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]." Programme halted A US intelligence estimate published last year said that Iran halted its nuclear weapons efforts in 2003, a conclusion that Israel has rejected. Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for the UK's Independent daily, told Al Jazeera: "Will the Israelis strike Iran? I doubt it very much. Will the Iranians try to strike Israel? I doubt it very much. "I think this is played out for people who watch television and open newspapers. "I don't take either of them very seriously, except that of course the Americans want to sell billions and billions more weapons to the Saudis. I am sure the Iranians would like to do the same thing."