BEIJING (Reuters) - China needs stronger military forces as it faces growing instability and threats to national security, the ruling Communist Party's ideological mouthpiece said according to reports in the state media on Wednesday.

An essay in the latest issue of Qiushi, or Seek Truth, says China must strengthen its military to guard a peaceful international setting for economic growth, the official China News Service reported.

"Destabilizing and uncertain factors are increasing and having a major impact on China's security environment," the essay said.

"History demonstrates that one cannot rely on others granting peace, and only building a strong military and firm national defense can provide a reliable security barrier," it added.

Qiushi magazine is the Communist Party's ideological mouthpiece and often carries essays by senior officials and theorists. The latest essay appears to reflect unease about China's military preparedness, even with rapidly rising defense spending over the past decade.

The essay did not specify the threats calling for stronger defense, but it said that Western foes did not want to see a strong China.

"Hostile Western forces do not want to see a strong socialist China emerge in the east, and they are constantly cooking up vain attempts to hold in check and contain China's development."

Supporters of independence for Taiwan -- the self-governed island that China has claimed as its own since their split in 1949 amid civil war -- are also a "major peril", it added.

China has experienced deepening friction with Japan over Tokyo's treatment of its World War Two invasion and its increasingly assertive foreign policy.

Beijing's relations with Washington are strained by mutual mistrust, even as the two countries seek to cooperate over curtailing North Korea's nuclear weapons program and defusing other regional disputes.

"At present, the political and military environment on China's periphery is quite complex, and unpredictable factors are clearly rising," the essay said.

China's 2.3-million-strong People's Liberation Army is the world's largest standing force and Beijing has said its defense budget will rise 14.7 percent to 283.8 billion yuan ($35.5 billion) in 2006.

That is much smaller than United States' $419.3 billion defense budget for 2006, but many in Washington say China's real defense spending is higher than its official figure.

The Rome conference is to be attended by the US, Canada, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, as well as the UN and the World Bank. It is due to publish a statement setting out the broad outlines of a possible deal, including the injection of a muscular international stabilisation force which Hizbullah rejected yesterday. But the mood in Rome was soured last night when an Israeli air strike hit a UN monitoring post in south Lebanon, killing four UN peacekeepers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, immediately demanded that Israel investigate the direct hit that he said was "apparently deliberate".

"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post ... occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert," Mr Annan said. Israel expressed regret, and promised an investigation, but denied it had targeted the post.

Fears that the conflict could spread across the region intensified yesterday. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a normally placid US ally, warned that "if the option of peace fails as a result of Israeli arrogance, then the only option remaining will be war, and God alone knows what the region would witness in a conflict that would spare no one".

Tony Blair's official spokesman, confronting criticism that the prime minister had failed to call for an immediate ceasefire, insisted he had been working "on a daily, almost hourly basis" for more than a week on the details of a Rome deal.

Responding to yesterday's Guardian ICM poll reflecting widespread unease over the closeness of Mr Blair to George Bush, the spokesman said the findings were contradictory, wanting him to distance Britain from the US while demanding he use his influence on the US to bring about a ceasefire.

The ceasefire, a prisoner exchange and the new international force are expected to comprise the main elements of the Rome deal. The US is also thought to be ready to offer Lebanon the return of the contested Shebaa farms region occupied by Israel since 1982 as part of the package.

But Iran claims that no amount of western effort can bring a breakthrough, with key parties shut out of the negotiating room. A senior Iranian official, speaking by phone from Tehran, said: "Iran and Syria should be involved [in peace negotiations], not because they are sponsors of Hizbullah, but because they are regional powers. If Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are involved, then Iran and Syria should be as well, if they are looking to be successful."

The official added that a continuing failure to halt the fighting and reach a just settlement would "certainly spark a backlash" across the Muslim world. He said that public opinion was increasingly outraged by the destruction of Lebanon.

Last night, Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said his group's missiles would start hitting targets deeper into Israel, and warned he would not accept a "humiliating" ceasefire. Another Hizbullah leader hinted that the group had not expected such a ferocious response from Israel, as previous border incidents have usually played out in low-key fashion.

The US, Britain and Israel blame mainly Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria for the bloodshed in Lebanon, claiming they supply missiles and money to Hizbullah and say that Iran is seeking to deflect attention from UN moves to take punitive action over its nuclear programme.

But Iranian and Hizbullah officials say they suspect Israel's action against Hizbullah is part of a wider US-inspired tactic. Mr Nasrallah said the US-Israeli "assessment" had identified obstacles to their vision of a "new Middle East" and had set out to eliminate them. He said Israel had been looking for a pretext to launch an offensive; the abduction of two of its soldiers two weeks ago gave it the perfect excuse.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said UN inaction was not helping. "Upon hearing the slightest criticism against the Zionist regime, they issue dozens of resolutions. But now, 13 days after that regime's massive attack against Lebanon, using most fatal weapons, they even refrain from asking for a truce," he said.

Britain has been criticised for aligning itself too closely with the US, and last night the Foreign Office was looking into a report that a British airport was used as a staging post last weekend by US planes transporting bunker busting bombs to Israel. "If the Americans have done something wrong, then we will raise it with them," a spokesman said of the report in the Daily Telegraph.

An official involved in preparations for the summit lowered expectations for the Rome meeting: "It's going to be a talking shop," he said.

He added: "Iran and Syria are definitely protagonists and people will need to speak to them as this goes on. But this meeting will not find the silver bullet."

Both incidents occurred on Monday, one in the southeastern province of Paktika and the other in eastern Kunar.

Seven insurgents were killed in the Paktika clash after militants attacked a patrol with small arms and rocket propelled grenades, a forces statement said. A coalition soldier suffered minor shrapnel wounds.

In Kunar, the American soldier was killed by militants during a coalition ground operation, backed by aircraft fire.

The statement did not say if there were any casualties among the militants.

More than 1,700 people have been killed since the start of the year in attacks by Taliban guerrillas and U.S.-led coalition operations.

Most of the victims have been militants, according to Afghan and foreign commanders, but the death toll also includes civilians, aid workers, Afghan forces and over 70 foreign troops.

Civilians are increasingly being caught up in the violence and on Tuesday an Afghan national was killed and four others wounded when the taxi they were traveling in hit a roadside bomb north of Kabul, NATO-led forces said.

The Taliban have vowed to drive out foreign forces from Afghanistan and topple President Hamid Karzai's government.

The rise in violence comes as NATO-led peacekeepers prepare to take charge of security from the coalition in six southern provinces, the main stronghold of the militants. The change in command will see NATO oversee all security except in the east.

Separately, Younus Khalis, leader of a pro-Taliban faction, died last week, the Pakistan based Afghan Islamic Press quoted a statement signed by Khalis' son as saying.

Khalis, who was in his late 70's, went into hiding in late 2003 when he announced a holy war against foreign forces in Afghanistan. His loyalists are active in some parts of southeastern Afghanistan.

Just 30% think the prime minister has got the relationship about right, against 63% saying he has tied Britain too closely to the US.

Carried in the wake of the accidental broadcast of the prime minister's conversation with President Bush at the G8 summit, the poll finds opposition to this central element of the prime minister's foreign policy among supporters of all the main parties.

Even a majority of Labour supporters - traditionally more supportive of Mr Blair's foreign policy position - think he has misjudged the relationship, with 54% saying Britain is too close to the US. Conservatives - 68% - and Liberal Democrats - 83% - are even more critical.

And voters are strongly critical of the scale of Israel's military operations in Lebanon, with 61% believing the country has overreacted to the threats it faces.

As pressure grows for a change of strategy, the poll finds that only 22% of voters believe Israel has reacted proportionately to the kidnapping of soldiers and other attacks from militant groups in southern Lebanon. Israel has repeatedly sought to assure the world that its actions are a legitimate response to threats to its own territory, including missile attacks on the north of the country.

The finding follows more than a week in which Mr Blair has come under fire for echoing US caution about the practicality of an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East and for allying himself too closely to Israel.

At a press conference in London yesterday Mr Blair defended his position and expressed sympathy for the plight of the Lebanese. "What is occurring in Lebanon at the present time is a catastrophe. Anybody with any sense of humanity wants what is happening to stop and stop now," Mr Blair said. He added: "But if it is to stop, it must stop on both sides."

This did not amount to switch in policy but a change in emphasis, in part to answer critics who accuse him of being indifferent to the plight of the Lebanese. A British official said: "He wants to make it clear he has the same feelings as everyone else but the job of government is to find an answer. The proof of the pudding is if we are able to find a way through."

Unlike other international leaders, Mr has refused to describe the Israeli attacks on Lebanon as disproportionate. But the official said there was a difference between what Mr Blair said in public and what Mr Blair and other members of the government said to the Israelis in private.

Public unease about Israel's approach is reflected in public attitudes to the Iraq war, with support for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein falling to a record low since military action began in March 2003.

Although a solid core of Labour supporters - 48% - still think the war was justified, overall only 36% of voters agree - a seven-point drop since the Guardian last asked the question in October 2004.

Older voters, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and people living in the south are particularly critical, suggesting the anti-war movement has a base of support well beyond student groups and the left.

Support for the war reached 63% in April 2003, in the wake of early military success. Now a narrow majority of voters - 51% - believe it was unjustified, the highest proportion for more than two years.

Amid fears that the armed forces are operating at the limit of their resources, voters also believe that British troops are doing more harm than good in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are more concerned by the role of British forces in Iraq than Afghanistan, with 36% saying their presence is making the situation worse in Iraq against 29% who think this is true of Britain's more recent deployment in southern Afghanistan.

But both findings outweigh the proportion of voters who think British troops are improving the situation on the ground: just 19% of all those questioned think they are making progress in Iraq and 23% think this is the case in Afghanistan. Around a third of voters think that at best British forces are making no difference one way or the other in the two countries.

There is also minimal public appetite for fresh foreign policy commitments, such as a multinational force in Lebanon. An overwhelming proportion of voters think current deployments are already overstretching Britain's military resources: 69% agree; 19% do not.

Conservatives - 78% of whom believe the armed forces are overstretched - are especially concerned, despite David Cameron's support for an interventionist policy, symbolised by his visit to troops in Kandahar yesterday.

- ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,001 adults over 18 by telephone on July 21-23. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

Israel's bombing campaign which is causing immense suffering, is in blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, and deserves the strongest of condemnations. It is especially important for the Jewish community today to distance itself from Israel's immoral government policies and US's support for them. Many Jews are doing this, unfortunately, many are not. "Thousands of American Jews clogged the streets" in New York and elsewhere in the US. in support of Israel's actions, reports the Jerusalem Post. Both Houses of the US Congress have just passed solidly backed bipartisan resolutions supporting Israel's actions in Lebanon to "solidify long-term backing of Jewish voters" according to the Washington Post.

The irony is, Israel's war crimes are going to be dwarfed in comparison to the crime against humanity that would take place if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. Israel, by its disproportionate reaction and by accusing Iran (without proof) of being behind Hezbollah's actions will be seen as having played a key role if the conflict escalates to engulf Iran and the United States. Yet the motivation for those that want this to happen is not to ensure Israel's hegemony in the Middle East, rather it is to ensure US hegemony in the world.

Israel's Interests

It goes without saying that Israel would benefit from the destruction of Hezbollah. Yet it is hard to see how the indiscriminate attack against Lebanon that is taking place will achieve anything other than strengthening the already strong support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Shmuel Rosner argues in a Haaretz OpEd that Israel is "America's deadly messenger", being used to promote Bush's "democracy agenda". It certainly appears that Israel's current actions are irrational and self-destructive. Unless their real aim is to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict, following directions from Washington. At the very least it is clear that Israel would not be doing this in the absence of a guarantee from the US that it will intervene if the conflict widens, which in any event Bush has already publicly announced.

If Iran enters the conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel, the US will step in and destroy the military infrastructure of Iran by aerial bombardment. As suggested by Seymour Hersh and others this is likely to involve the US use of nuclear "bunker busters".

It has been predicted that if the US or Israel attack Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah who will carry out devastating attacks against Israel. "Hizbollah was also seen as a means of tying our hands on the Iranian nuclear threat," says an Israeli official. Well, we are in the dress rehersal, and we are seeing that despite all the hype, Hezbollah is a paper tiger. Green light for the Iran attack.

Iran's Interests

What is really unusual about the current flare-up in the Middle East is the barrage of strident denunciations against Iran, from the Bush administration, politicians from across the political spectrum and the mainstream media that uniformly accuse Iran (without presenting evidence) of being behind the Hezbollah actions. This has never happened before when there was conflict in Lebanon where Hezbollah was involved, why now?

One argument is Ahmadinejad's stated animosity against Israel. However, that has been Iran's stated position since 1979.

The other argument is that Iran is trying to "divert attention" from the nuclear issue. That defies the most elementary logic. If Iran was really intent in getting nuclear weapons and destroying Israel, it would try to keep things as quiet as possible until it gets those nuclear weapons, several years into the future.

The reality is that, whether one ascribes to Iran evil or benign intentions, Iran draws no benefit whatsoever from the current turmoil in Lebanon. Neither does Syria. Consequently the rhetoric from the US and Israel suggests a deliberate attempt to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict.

US Interests

A US attack on Iran has been predicted by analysts for several years. The US policy vis-a-vis Iran is clearly directed towards confrontation rather than accommodation. There are many reasons for the US to attack Iran, including the control of energy resources, suppression of a regional power opposite to US and Israeli interests, etc. However I have argued for many months that the key reason for the US to seek a military confrontation with Iran is that it will "force" the US to cross the nuclear threshold and use low yield nuclear weapons against Iranian installations. And this is seen as essential to further US geopolitical goals.

The United States used nuclear weapons against Japan not because it had to. It did so to demonstrate to the world that it was in possession of a new weapon that packed the destructive power of thousands of bombing missions into a single one. To tell the rest of the world, beware.

Since then, it has spent over 5 trillion dollars in building up its nuclear arsenal, but nuclear weapons have become "unusable" after 60 years of non-use. America has achieved nuclear primacy but it is useless, until it shows that nuclear weapons are usable again.

Low yield B61-11 nuclear bunker busters have already been deployed, just in case "surprising military developments" give rise to "military necessity". Once Iran is drawn into a conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel or US forces in the region, the US administration will argue that the next Iranian missile could carry chemical or biological warheads and cause untold casualties among Americans, Iraqis or Israelis. A low yield nuclear bunker buster will be touted as the most "humane" way to prevent further loss of life.

What could happen

In 1941, a vast military effort was started by the United States to create nuclear weapons, culminating in the Trinity test and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The effort was shrouded in secrecy and any moral qualms were set aside. When it succeeded, it was argued that many American and Japanese lives had been saved by nuking Japan into surrender.

Any speculation during the period 1941-1945 that the United States had 100,000 people devoted to create a secret weapon million-fold more powerful than any known weapon would have been dismissed as the ultimate "conspiracy theory".

Similarly, much evidence indicates that a deliberate project, shrouded in secrecy, exists today that will culminate in the nuking of Iran, to "save lives". Many are privy to parts of the plan, as Seymour Hersh revealed, only a few know the plan in its entirety. Low-yield nuclear bunker busters would be used, untested but as reliable as the untested "Little Boy" that leveled Hiroshima. Americans will buy the "military necessity" argument because it will be true: American troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks facing Iranian missiles, with or without WMD warheads.

After the US uses nuclear weapons again, it will have established the usability of its nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear countries. It will be possible to wage war "on the cheap", saving many American lives in future conflicts. "Support the troops" is the one thing all Americans, no matter how diverse their views are, agree on.

It should not be allowed to happen. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. We know from previous actions of this administration what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are capable of. There have been radical changes in US nuclear weapons policies and in preemption "doctrine", and the Bush announcement that the nuclear option is "on the table". In response, there needs to be a strong groundswell call to restrict the absolute presidential authority of this President to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By the general public, by "antinuclear" organizations, by scientific, political and professional organizations. To push Congress into action before it is too late. Without a "nuclear option", the US will be more interested in negotiation than in confrontation with Iran.

Cui Bono?

In the short term, Israel certainly will benefit from the destruction of Iran's military capabilities.

But Israel will not enjoy peace as a result, because the nuking of Iran will create enormous animosity against Israel in the Muslim world and beyond. To the extent that the world buys the US fable that the nuking of Iran was required by "military necessity" and not premeditated, Israel (and Jews worldwide) will bear a heavier than deserved brunt for having contributed to "precipitate" these events.

The US will reap enormous benefits. Flexing its nuclear muscle, it will establish its absolute hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond, and gradually squeeze China and Russia into nuclear disarmament and complete submission.

In the end of course we will all lose. Because the nuclear genie, unleashed from its bottle in the war against Iran, will never retreat. And just like the US could develop nuclear weapons in only 4 years with completely new technology 60 years ago, many more countries and groups will be highly motivated to do it in the coming years.

Think about the current disproportionate response of Israel, applied in a conflict where the contenders have nuclear weapons. 10 to 1 retaliation, starting with a mere 600 casualties, wipes out the entire Earth's population in eight easy steps. Who will be willing to stop the escalation? The country that lost 60,000 citizens in the last hit? The one that lost 600,000? 6 million?

As the nuclear holocaust unfolds, some will remember the Lebanon conflict and subsequent Iran war and blame it on Israel. Others will properly blame Americans, for having allowed their Executive to erase the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, first in doctrine and then in practice, despite having the most powerful conventional military force in the world. Others of course will blame "Muslim extremism".

And then the blaming will wither away as a three-billion-year old experiment, life on planet Earth, comes to an end.

Speaking said at a gathering of Iranians residing in Turkmenistan's Capital Monday, he pointed out that the Security Council is a means at the hands of the big powers,

"These countries are merely after securing their own interests, forgetting all about the prestige, respect, and rights of the human beings whose blood is falling on the rubble of this war with each new day."

He added, "Resorting to most advanced weapons, they are trying to exert their political hegemony over the entire region, and to sell as much weapons to the regional countries as possible."

Ahmadinejad said: "They have been busy looting the regional nations for 60 years resorting to the pretext of World War II crimes. By the establishment of an illegitimate, fake regime called Israel in the region they try to halt the process of all other countries' scientific and economic development and advancement on the pretext of ensuring that regime's security.

"They implanted an infectious gland in the heart of the Middle East so that the regional nations would not taste a day's peace and stability."

The Iranian President said: "Some countries in our region have signed military pacts with the United States amounting to over 100 billion USD annually, using the money that should have been invested for the well being and advancement of their nations, just due to the existence of that regime.

"For 60 years they kept propagating that Israel was invulnerable, but today, we notice that the Lebanese nation, despite being under the severe attacks of the Zionist regime, has not permitted them to move an inch ahead.

"A popular force has managed to defend their country for 13 days, which we had previously seen that three countries were jointly unable to fight against Israel for more than six days."

He stressed that Iran supports all oppressed nations "but our support is of a spiritual nature, since if Iran would enter the scene the developments would not remain the same, but our support for oppressed nations is merely of a spiritual and political nature."

Criticizing certain world powers' plans for the region, Ahmadinejad said, "Who do you think you are to change the map of the Middle East, and after all, what is it to you to intend to do so, even if you could do it, and we know you can't?"

-- NNN-IRNA

The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had "known of these plans for some time."

The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia's arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan.

"If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. "The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely."

That proposal would allow the United States to share civilian nuclear technology with India.

Construction of the reactor in Pakistan began as early as 2000, and the plant is still several years from completion, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit group that produces technical assessments of nuclear weapons facilities. Based on a study of satellite photos, the group estimated the new reactor to have an operating capacity of 1,000 megawatts thermal and an annual yield of at least 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium.

A small reactor already operating at the Khushab site is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, according to the analysis.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry, reacting to a Washington Post article about the new plant, neither disputed the report nor offered specifics about the reactor. Pakistani officials acknowledged the nation's long-term ambition to expand its nuclear power infrastructure and modernize its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is thought to possess up to 50 nuclear bombs, all based on designs that use highly enriched uranium and generally are more cumbersome than plutonium devices.

"This ought to be no revelation to anyone, because Pakistan is a nuclear-weapons state," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a news conference in Islamabad, according to the Associated Press.

Aslam said Pakistan's leaders "do not want an arms race in this region," but she noted that Pakistan was not the first nation in South Asia to test nuclear weapons. Rival India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 and currently has about 30 plutonium-based warheads.

Weapons experts worried yesterday that Pakistan's expanded nuclear capabilities would lead countries in the region -- other than India -- to follow suit.

"There are makings of a vigorous competition in fissile material production in South Asia -- between India and Pakistan in the first instance but also China as well," said Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's chief nonproliferation official and now a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "It would be one thing if we were talking just about well-secured nuclear bombs. A larger concern is the greater amounts of fissile material, which create more opportunities for terrorists to get their hands on it."

Henry D. Sokolski, the Defense Department's top nonproliferation official during the George H.W. Bush administration, said he was most surprised by the way news of the reactor in Pakistan became known.

"What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal."