Dozens released from Mumbai hotel

By Gordon Corera
Security correspondent, BBC News

India - and Mumbai - are no stranger to terrorism but the attacks on multiple targets in the city mark a significant step change.

Previous attacks involved the leaving of explosives in public places like markets or on trains. These could be devastating in terms of the loss of life, with nearly 200 killed in 2006.

But the latest attacks are different in terms of both method and scale, with teams of well-armed men involved in synchronised attacks - the gunmen were also clearly prepared to die in their attacks.

Another major difference is the targeting of restaurants and hotels used by westerners and the apparent singling out of those with British and American passports.

This points to either a major shift in strategy by an existing group or the influence or direction of outside parties, perhaps even al-Qaeda, whose style of attacks this mimics.

However, while the attack was highly organised, it was not necessarily that advanced in terms of technology, with automatic weapons and grenades. It had more the look of a small-scale guerrilla war than a typical al-Qaeda attack.

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility for the attacks but little is known of it.

The men were of South Asian appearance and reportedly spoke Hindi, indicating they originated in India.

Attacks over recent years have seen a variety of different groups named, particularly the Indian Mujahideen who had apparently threatened to attack Mumbai in September, claiming that Muslims had been harassed.

The authorities have often pointed the finger at the Students' Islamic Movement of India, believing that other groups like the Indian Mujahideen are a front for this banned organisation.

Some attacks have also been blamed on Lashkar-e-Toiba, which India says is backed by Pakistan's intelligence agency the ISI.

That group on Thursday denied any involvement in the attacks.

However, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did say the "well-planned and well-orchestrated attacks" probably had "external linkages" to a neighbouring country.

Wider impact

If India were to formally accuse the Pakistani government, then major diplomatic problems could ensue, but that may be less likely happen as quickly as occurred in the past when relations were more fraught.

An attack by militants on the Indian parliament in December 2001 nearly led to war between the two countries.

Even if there were some kind of link to Pakistan, that would be different to a link to the Pakistani government, which is itself battling terrorists and suffering heavy casualties among both security forces and civilians.

The detention of a number of the militants and their subsequent interrogation should provide evidence for Indian authorities to try to understand any international links.

As well as tracking down any gunmen who have escaped, the local and national authorities will also have to deal with the issue of public confidence in their ability to get a grip on the situation.

After previous attacks, Mumbai bounced back quickly as a city, with life getting back to normal and people travelling on the trains again, but this attack may have a different psychological impact.

Nations aim to hammer out Azeri gas deal

By Guy Dinmore in Rome and Isabel Gorst in Moscow

Published: November 27 2008 22:55 | Last updated: November 27 2008 22:55

The governments of Italy, Greece, Turkey and Azerbaijan will meet in the coming weeks to try to hammer out an agreement on the export of Azeri gas to Europe via a planned pipeline across the Adriatic, official and industry sources said in Rome on Thursday.

Ilham Aliyev, president of Azerbaijan, met Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister, in Rome following talks in Milan with Umberto Quadrino, chief executive of Edison, an Italian-French utility.

Edison is seeking final approval from all four governments on the supply of 8bn cubic metres of gas a year from Azerbaijan. Pipelines already exist to take the gas through Turkey and Greece and Edison intends to construct the missing link, known as ITGI, between Greece and Italy.

Edison quoted Mr Aliyev as saying that he considered the project as the “most realistic” of various proposed ventures, a reference to the Nabucco consortium that would take up to 31bn cubic metres of Caspian gas a year via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary to a hub in Austria.

Mr Aliyev is also being courted by Russia’s Gazprom to sell Azerbaijan’s surplus gas to Russia. Washington is pressing him to look towards Europe instead.

Turkey is cited by analysts in all four countries involved as being the main stumbling block to an accord, despite a recent visit by Mr Berlusconi. Turkey wants the option to increase the amount of gas it consumes from Azerbaijan to make up for expiring Russian contracts, and is asking for special transit terms.

The EU, keen to diversify its sources of gas away from Russia, says Turkey has no right to demand special transit terms.

Industry sources said the four governments would meet at a senior level, possibly prime ministers, in Turkey. An Italian government source said the level and venue were to be decided.

Mr Berlusconi, who wants to maintain Italy’s close business relationship with Russia, says the ITGI project is “complementary and not alternative to others”. Eni, the part state-owned Italian energy company, has a joint venture with Russia’s Gazprom to build a deep sea pipeline to take Russian gas across the Black Sea to Europe.

The original ITGI plan assigned 8bn cubic metres of gas a year to Italy and 1.5bn each for Turkey and Greece. The Azeri gas is intended to come from the second phase of the Shah Deniz field.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

US global dominance 'set to wane'

US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.

It also says the dollar will no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.

However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.

It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.

"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.

Nevertheless, it concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."

Nuclear weapons use

The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.

But the latest report says that rising economies such as China, India and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multipolar international system.

A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.

Global warming will have had a greater impact by 2025, triggering food and water scarcities that could fuel conflict around the globe.


And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, says the report, as rogue states and terrorist groups gain greater access to such weapons.

But the NIC does give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent such scenarios.

"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.

And, adds our correspondent, it is worth noting that American intelligence has been wrong before.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm

Published: 2008/11/21 08:07:50 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Violent nationalism blights Turkey

Turkey is fiercely patriotic and proud of it. But the country's bid to join the European Union has sparked a nationalist backlash that has turned murderous, the BBC's Sarah Rainsford reports from Istanbul.



Writer Hrant Dink was the first victim, killed last year because some in Turkey could not tolerate what he stood for. To nationalists, he was a traitor.

In a country where every citizen is defined as a Turk, Hrant Dink defined himself as ethnic Armenian. That was already subversive to some. But Mr Dink went further.

He wrote about the expulsion and killing of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Armenians from eastern Turkey in 1915. To Armenians, and others, that was genocide - a claim Ankara vigorously denies.

Hrant's cause

Hrant Dink was convicted of insulting the Turkish nation. That is a crime here. Nationalist protesters surrounded his office shouting "Love Turkey or leave it!" and he received hundreds of death threats.


Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Rakel Dink on her husband and his murder

Already low-profile, after Mr Dink's murder most Armenians retreated into scared silence. But almost two years on, his widow has decided to speak out.

"Hrant was really affected by those protests," Rakel says, fighting back tears. "After that, we said only a miracle could help us live here."

But the family stayed.

"Hrant could never abandon his cause," says Rakel, explaining that he wanted to convince Turkey that diversity and dissent were a strength, not a threat.

His killers disagreed.

"I don't know if I should say this, but the origins of this murder go back to 1915," Rakel says.

"An Armenian told the truth to the face of the Turkish state and the law. That's why Hrant was murdered. It offended them, it dishonoured them."

Critical flashpoints

To Turks, honour is everything. From childhood they learn of a glorious history: how a soldier - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - forged a new nation from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.


Turkey needs time to adjust - the EU process may help, but my husband's death is their biggest loss
Rakel Dink

To most, the allegation their ancestors were guilty of genocide is an unacceptable slur.

Turkey's justice minister underlined that view himself this week, defending his decision to allow the trial of another writer to proceed for referring to "genocide".

"The man describes Turkey as a murderer state," Mehmet Ali Sahin is quoted as saying.

It seems freedom of expression is no defence.

"That is why they were against Hrant," Rakel says. "They could not digest what he was writing about, even though he used very soft language."

But Turkey's drive to enter the EU has made nationalists feel threatened, and that has made them aggressive.

The Armenian issue, and the treatment of millions of Kurds in Turkey, have become critical flashpoints.

'Once-and-for-all fight'

Almost 50 writers have been brought to trial since May for insulting the nation.


"Democracy means questioning, it means self-critique - and this is the thing they [nationalists] would not like," explains Umut Ozkirimli, from Istanbul's Bilgi University.

"For them, when you start questioning things you become a traitor."

That is why Hrant Dink was murdered.

It is also why at least 20 writers in Istanbul are now living with bodyguards.

Oral Calislar is one of them. A close friend of Hrant Dink, he is also a well-known critic of the Turkish military - particularly its policy towards ethnic Kurds.

He has had dozens of death threats. Now, wherever he goes his armed guard goes with him.

"We want to change this country into a democratic country and the EU accession process is important for that," the journalist says.

"I think because of that, some powers in the state want to shut our mouths."

Mr Calislar is sure Mr Dink's murder is part of a far broader resistance to reform. He sees that deep within institutions of the Turkish state; groups clinging to power - and to their own vision of the republic.

"This is a once-and-for-all fight. It's been going on in the closet for 80 years, between those who want change and those who don't," Mr Ozkirimli agrees.

"If the whole project of EU membership goes away, [then] the democratic forces will lose, and forever," he adds.

'Ergenekon' trial

In that battle for democracy, Hrant Dink was on the frontline. Now there is another sign the fight will be fierce.


Eighty ultra-nationalists are currently on trial just outside Istanbul, accused of plotting to overthrow the government and block democratic reforms.

The prosecutor claims the group - known as Ergenekon - planned a campaign of murder and violence. It was meant to create chaos - and force the military to step in and take control.

Hrant Dink believed Turkey could change. His vision was of a truly democratic republic and the EU accession process was a vital part of that.

To his widow, such change now looks a long way off.

"[Turkey] doesn't want people to express their ethnic identity, or live freely. That doesn't fit the founding ideas of this country,” Rakel says.

"Turkey needs time to adjust. The EU process may help, but my husband's death is their biggest loss."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7737413.stm

Published: 2008/11/19 16:31:29 GMT

After U.S. Breakthrough, Europe Looks in Mirror

November 12, 2008
By STEVEN ERLANGER

PARIS — In the general European euphoria over the election of Barack Obama, there is the beginning of self-reflection about Europe’s own troubles with racial integration. Many are asking if there could be a French, British, German or Italian Obama, and everyone knows the answer is no, not anytime soon.

It is risky to make racial comparisons between America and Europe, given all the historical and cultural differences. But race had long been one reason that Europeans, harking back to the days when famous American blacks like Josephine Baker and James Baldwin found solace in France, looked down on the United States, even as Europe developed postcolonial racial problems of its own.

“They always said, ‘You think race relations are bad here in France, check out the U.S.,’ ” said Mohamed Hamidi, former editor of the Bondy Blog, founded after the 2005 riots in the heavily immigrant suburbs of Paris.

“But that argument can no longer stand,” he said.

For many immigrants to Europe, Mr. Obama’s victory is “a small revolution” toward better overall treatment of minorities, said Nadia Azieze, 31, an Algerian-born nurse who grew up here. “It will never be the same,” she said, over a meal of rice and lamb in the racially mixed Paris neighborhood of Barbès-Rochechouart.

Her sister, Cherine, 29, is a computer engineer. Mr. Obama “really represents the dream of America — if you work, you can make it,” she said. “It’s a hope for the entire world.”

But the sisters are less optimistic about the realities of France, where minorities have a limited political role, with only one black deputy elected to the National Assembly from mainland France.

Has the Obama election caused any real self-reflection among the majority here? “It’s politically correct to say, ‘O.K., great! He’s black,’ and clap,” Nadia said. “But deep down, there’s no change. People say one thing and believe another.”

In all the jobs she has ever had, she said, “I’ve always been asked to do more, because I’m an immigrant. We always have to prove ourselves.”

Down the street, picking through the cheap clothes on sidewalk stands, Fatou Diedhiou, 34, born in Senegal, said that Mr. Obama’s victory may make the French give blacks “a bit of respect.” But she finds deep racism among the French, who she says “think that all blacks are illiterate and can’t do anything but clean.”

Mr. Obama is an exceptional figure even in the United States, a nation of immigrants with a long and complex history of racial problems going back to the Indian wars and the extensive slave trade, which produced a bloody civil war.

Most European countries were relatively monoethnic until the postcolonial period. Britain, for example, was largely white until the mid-20th century and still does not have a substantial black middle class, while French immigrants are almost all from former French colonies in North Africa, like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, or in black Africa, like Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast.

Measured by political representation of minorities, both the United States and Europe seem lagging, though Mr. Obama’s victory seemed to underscore how much farther behind Europe is.

Mr. Obama is the only black in the current Senate, and unless he is replaced by an African-American, the new Senate will have none. The new House has 39 black representatives, about 9 percent. Blacks make up about 13 percent of the country’s population.

But Rama Yade, the Senegal-born state secretary for human rights, called herself “a painful exception” in the French government, despite President Nicolas Sarkozy’s appointment of three prominent black or Muslim women to his government. As for the political elite’s embrace of Mr. Obama, she said, “The enthusiasm they express toward this far-away American, they don’t have it for the minorities in France.”

It is not only immigrants who are pondering what Mr. Obama’s victory says about Europe. France’s defense minister, Hervé Morin, called the Obama victory “a lesson” for a French democracy late to adopt integration.

“In this election, the Americans not only chose a president, but also their identity,” said Dominique Moïsi, a French political analyst. “And now we have to think, too, about our identity in France — it’s the most challenging election ever. We realize we are late, and America has regained the torch of a moral revolution.”

In Italy, Jean-Léonard Touadi, the only black member of the Italian Parliament, sees the Obama victory similarly. It is “a great and concrete provocation to European society and European politics,” said Mr. Touadi, born in the Congo Republic. Mr. Obama gives hope, he said, that “one day” there can be a similar outcome in Europe.

But not soon. Hossain Moazzem, a Bangladeshi waiter at L’Insalata Ricca restaurant, said he hoped Mr. Obama’s victory would foster “change all over the world.” But Italy, he said, had a “long, long” way to go.

In Britain, too, there was skepticism. Trevor Phillips, the black chairman of the independent Equality and Human Rights Commission, said that the political system held immigrants back. “If Barack Obama had lived here, I would be very surprised if even somebody as brilliant as him would have been able to break through the institutional stranglehold that there is on power,” he told The Times of London.

Britain has several minority ministers below cabinet rank, but just 15 nonwhites in the 646-member House of Commons. The parliamentary system makes it harder for a young person or an outsider to emerge.

“In Britain, you can’t make a brilliant speech and get noticed the way Barack Obama did,” Sadiq Khan, a Labor minister, told The Guardian. “You have to rise up through the ranks in Parliament.”

But Ashok Viswanathan, assistant director of Operation Black Vote, which works to engage members of minorities in politics, predicted that Britain could have a party leader from a minority in the next 10 to 15 years, and a minority member as prime minister in 30.

“If someone said two years ago that there would be a black president, most people would have laughed that person out of town,” he said. “The very nature of aspiration is when barriers are broken, whether in flying to the moon or being the first black person around a cabinet table — it’s something that nobody believes will happen.”

Germany is yet a different case, with its largest immigrant population invited from Turkey to work in West German factories in the 1960s and 1970s. Germany now has some 2.9 million inhabitants of Turkish background, 800,000 of them with German citizenship under new laws. But they have little political representation in the unified Germany of 82 million, with just 5 members of the 613-seat Bundestag.

Even Cem Ozdemir, Germany’s best-known ethnic Turkish politician, currently a European legislator, is having trouble getting on the Greens Party list of candidates for the Bundestag — in part because of internal opposition to his ambition to lead the party.

“Germans can’t believe a Turkish politician believes in a politics for Germany,” said Mely Kiyak, 32, a German-born daughter of Turkish parents who wrote a book, “Ten for Germany,” about the problems of ethnic Turkish politicians. “The Germans think, ‘This is our country. Why should we elect a Turk? He might want to Islamicize the country.”‘

The Germans love Mr. Obama, she said, “but we don’t have minorities anywhere, not in media, in politics, in the executive or the judiciary.”

Ferdi Sarikurt, 22, who works in a bakery in Berlin’s Kreuzberg district, came to Germany at age 1 and is a citizen. A German Obama is beyond his imagination, he said. “The German government would not allow this to happen because it would think that a person with an immigrant background would favor the foreigners. Maybe this will change when I am 50 years old, if at all.”

But Ms. Kiyak said the Obama victory was causing significant reflection in the immigrant community, if not yet in the country at large. “Minorities see what is possible in another country, and they become jealous,” she said, noting that President Abdullah Gul of Turkey said recently in Der Spiegel that Turkish Germans “should take part in German society and politics and not look back.”

Given that France has such close ties to its former colonies and more Muslims than any other country in Europe, the debate here is more complicated.

On Sunday, numerous politicians signed a manifesto written by Yazid Sabeg, a millionaire child of Algerian immigrants, calling for affirmative-action programs to turn the supposedly colorblind French ideal of equality into reality for alienated immigrants.

“The election of Barack Obama highlights via a cruel contrast the shortcomings of the French Republic and the distance that separates us from a country whose citizens knew how to go beyond the racial question,” the manifesto said. It won support from Mr. Sarkozy’s wife, Carla, who told Le Journal du Dimanche, “our prejudices are insidious” and hoped the “Obama effect” would help to reshape society.

But the French model of citizenship does not allow for official distinctions by race or religion. When a legislative official here was asked for data on the number of black or Muslim legislators, he told a reporter to “look at the pictures on the Senate directory,” to judge by name and skin color.

Joseph Macé-Scaron, writing in the French-language weekly Marianne, said that the discussion of a “French Obama” was a diversion and a screen, substituting a false American model onto France. The problem here, as in other parts of Europe, he said, was less the rejection of nonwhite immigrants than the way political and cultural elites patronized and used them, “only to better block access to the top of the social ladder.”

Praising “the ‘difference’ of nonwhites locked them inside identities of resentment,” he said.

But the conservative Le Figaro blamed French minorities themselves for part of their exclusion. The paper noted that Mr. Obama’s success was based on his upbringing, education and success at integrating into the larger society and articulating its values, including patriotism.

“From this point of view, Obama should be the model to follow for young immigrants who have come to doubt their feeling of belonging to the nation,” the paper said. “Minorities, who have chosen their exile, in contrast to black Americans, still have a lot to prove.”

Reporting was contributed by Rachel Donadio from Rome, Sarah Lyall from London, Victor Homola from Berlin, and Maïa de la Baume and Basil Katz from Paris.

Istanbul’s optimism wearing thin

By Delphine Strauss in Ankara

Published: November 16 2008 21:10 | Last updated: November 16 2008 21:10

Turkish bankers are more familiar with the convulsions in global finance than most.

In 2001 some two-fifths of the country’s banks failed after a spree of irresponsible, sometimes corrupt, lending. Rescuing and recapitalising these institutions cost a crippling 30 per cent of gross domestic product and plunged the economy into deep recession.

Yet it is thanks to that forced restructuring that Turkish banks now look almost solid compared with their shaky western counterparts.

For the sector as a whole, capital ratios range from 15-25 per cent, research by Moody’s found, while the loan to deposit ratio stood at 85 per cent in June, and retail deposits account for the bulk of banks’ funding.

But, Istanbul bankers’ early optimism is now wearing thin as Turkey increasingly feels the effects of global credit tightening and a sharp domestic downturn.

Third-quarter earnings will be 35 per cent lower than last quarter, due to trading losses and lower dividend and non-interest income, according to analysts at Credit Suisse.

Among banks that have already reported, Garanti revealed a 20 per cent quarter on quarter fall in net earnings and loan growth of just 4 per cent.

George Chrysaphinis, analyst at Moody’s, says for the global financial crisis to hurt Turkey’s banks, it has to reach the real economy first. “Only now are we entering that phase. What we don’t know is how severe it is going to be.”

One big vulnerability is the financial sector’s exposure to sudden swings in the lira’s value. Banks no longer have big direct exposure to foreign exchange borrowing, which proved devastating when the currency plunged in 2001. But their customers are highly sensitive to exchange rates.

When the lira tumbled along with other emerging market currencies last month, analysts estimate foreign exchange deposits in the banking system shrank by $10bn-$11bn. About $6bn was converted into Turkish lira deposits, but the rest disappeared – perhaps under the mattresses of consumers with long memories.

“This is making the balance sheet structure of banks change dramatically,” says Suzan Sabanci Dincer, chairwoman of Akbank, Turkey’s second-largest bank by assets.

A bigger worry is banks’ indirect exposure to exchange rate risk through the borrowing of non-financial companies – whose net foreign exchange liabilities were more than $80bn in the second quarter of 2008.

Sustained depreciation in the lira would hit companies with heavy, unhedged foreign currency borrowing – with a knock-on effect for banks’ balance sheets.

Views differ on the severity of the threat. Optimists argue that short-term foreign exposure is much lower than in the past and that owners would use family assets to bail out their companies in a crisis.

“When we lend to medium-sized companies, we always take guarantees from the owners,” Ms Sabanci Dincer says. But she added Akbank would for now be extending foreign currency loans mainly to exporters with foreign earnings – and was already offering advice to smaller companies on cashflow management.

Ergun Ozen, chief executive of Garanti, forecasts its lira-denominated lending will grow 10-15 per cent in 2009, while foreign currency lending will grow 5-10 per cent. One analyst at a foreign bank in Istanbul says that Turkish bank valuations are already attractive without any lending growth.

So far, bankers say, there is little need for heavy-handed government help. They welcomed changes to accounting rules that will allow institutions to hold some assets to maturity rather than marking them to market – a policy that is helping the earnings of banks across Europe.

But survivors of the last crisis are wary of reintroducing a full guarantee for retail deposits – saying this encouraged foolhardy lending before 2001.

Whatever the precautions, banks are bound to record an increase in bad loans as Turkish companies suffer a slump in export markets and a domestic slowdown.

Analysts warn that the quality of loan books – after a period of rapid loan growth to small and medium sized companies – has not been tested in a downturn.

In particular, nobody knows how painful could be banks’ exposure to real estate – where a splurge of luxury shopping malls now looks spectacularly ill-timed.

But the biggest risk is macroeconomic. Even with lower energy prices, there is growing speculation that Turkey will have to run down foreign exchange reserves, and possibly call on the IMF to help plug the gap. If that situation escalates into a full currency crisis, all bets are off.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

France holds 'Eta military head'

The suspected military chief of the Basque separatist group, Eta, has been arrested in southern France, the French interior minister has announced.

Michele Alliot-Marie said Garikoitz Aspiazu Rubina, alias "Txeroki", was arrested overnight in the Pyrenees.

She said he was suspected of the murder of two Spanish civil guard officers in the French town of Capbreton in 2007.

Eta is blamed for the deaths of more than 820 people in its 40-year campaign for an independent Basque nation.

The group resumed its campaign of violence in June 2007, following the failure of secret dialogue with the Spanish government. Correspondents say Mr Aspiazu Rubina was a key figure in the decision.

Spain's ruling party hailed the arrest as a "very important" blow to Eta.

"This is magnificent news of great importance because it is the chief of the Eta commandos, the person who was behind attacks, who gave the order to kill and who himself killed, a very blood-thirsty terrorist," the Socialist Party said in a statement.

It follows the detention of Eta's political commander, Javier Lopez Pena, in a joint Spanish-French operation in the French city of Bordeaux in May.

However, the BBC's Steve Kingstone in Madrid says that, in the past, high-profile arrests have always been followed by fresh attacks and Eta is far from defeated.

Police deaths

In a statement, France's interior minister said Mr Aspiazu Rubina, 35, had been arrested overnight in the Hautes-Pyrenees region of south-western France.

The Basque news agency, Vasco Press, said that Mr Aspiazu Rubina, whose nickname means Cherokee, had been detained along with another suspected Eta member in the town of Cauterets.

Ms Alliot-Marie did not provide any other details about the arrest, but said he was "suspected of being the perpetrator" of the murder of two Spanish civil guard officers in Capbreton on 1 December 2007.

"This arrest shows again the resolute commitment of the French police and gendarmerie in the fight against all forms of terrorism and illustrates once again the excellent co-operation between France and Spain in the fight against Basque terrorism," the French statement added.

The two Spanish civil guards were shot during a surveillance operation on suspected Eta members. Their deaths prompted thousands of Spaniards to denounce the separatist group at a march in the capital, Madrid.


French police arrested a man and a woman over the attack several days later - but said at the time they were looking for a third suspect.

Earlier this month, Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said two recently arrested suspected Eta members had said Mr Aspiazu Rubina had told them he had participated directly in the shooting.

One of them had said he "heard Txeroki recognise that he was the assassin of the two policemen," he added.

Eta suffered a major blow in May with the arrest of Mr Lopez Pena, alias "Thierry", along with three other suspected members of the group.

Mr Lopez Pena is alleged to have ordered the December 2006 bombing of Madrid's airport, which ended the 14-month-old ceasefire with the government and killed two people.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7732678.stm

Published: 2008/11/17 10:17:39 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Politkovskaya murder case opens

Several men have gone on trial in Moscow charged with plotting to kill the prominent Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006.

The case is expected to be held behind closed doors in a military court.

The suspected killer remains at large, and Ms Politkovskaya's supporters say there is little likelihood the trial will reveal who ordered her killing.

Ms Politkovskaya, a Kremlin critic, was shot dead outside her home in Moscow the capital on 7 October 2006.

'Farce'

Four men have been charged over the murder, but it was unclear how many of them were going on trial on Monday.

The four are Pavel Ryaguzov, an agent with Russia's security service, former policeman Sergey Khadzhikurbanov and two Chechen brothers, Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov.

However, they are not charged with Ms Politkovskaya's murder - only of taking part in the plot.

Investigators say Rustan Makhmudov - who is believed to have fired the fatal shot - and the person or persons who ordered Mr Politkovskaya's killing remain at large.

On Monday, the Moscow court is deciding whether or not the trial should be held behind closed doors, as some of the documents that are likely to be used during the hearings are considered to be "secret" by the Russian authorities.

Ms Politkovskaya's friends and supporters have described the trial as a "farce".

"How can you say the investigation is complete if you have neither the killer nor the person who ordered it in the dock?" Russian journalist Grigory Pasko said.

"Also... how can they hold a closed trial in this case?" Mr Pasko added.

The murder of Ms Politkovskaya, who wrote for the small-circulation Novaya Gazeta, shocked the international community but did not register widely in Russia.

Ms Politkovskaya had frequently travelled to Chechnya and the North Caucasus where her dispatches described some of the horror of a war where most of the casualties were civilians.

She was the 13th journalist to be killed in a contract-style killing in Russia during Vladimir Putin's period as president, according to the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Mr Putin - who had served maximum two consecutive terms in office - was succeeded by Dmitry Medvedev in May.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7732760.stm

Published: 2008/11/17 09:27:42 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

The Most Anti-American Nation

By Soner Cagaptay | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 15, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

Dear President-Elect Obama: As you take office, I am enthusiastically watching your desire to win hearts and minds around the world. But I am concerned in particular about Turkey. This nation is the embodiment of what the United States and the West want to achieve around the world. It is predominantly Muslim, yet Western and democratic. But the Turks are vehemently anti-American, so much so that they consistently rank in polls as the most anti-American country in the world. According to the Pew Center's latest poll, only 12 percent of the Turks like the United States—fewer, even, than the percentage of Pakistanis. Obamania in Turkey will help you change America's image, but given the dismal numbers, I am afraid that might not be enough. Despite the close cooperation with the United States on Iraq, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has taken the easy way, bashing America at home in an attempt to boost its own popularity. But you should not ignore Turkey. Because of its strategic location, Turkey is a key partner to the United States in tackling many foreign-policy challenges. You will need Turkish support and the Turkish base at Incirlik to achieve many of your goals, such as withdrawing troops from Iraq.

So allow me to make some suggestions on tackling anti-Americanism in Turkey. First, do not dismiss the AKP's rhetoric as benign domestic politicking. While an anti-Western statement by a Danish politician could be dismissed as "crazy," and the same statement by an Egyptian might be considered "normal," Turkey is neither Denmark nor Egypt. This is the rare country in which anti-Western statements actually matter because they help shape people's identity. Since the AKP assumed power in 2002, the Turks have not heard anything positive about the West from their leadership. In fact, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has often lambasted the West, suggesting, for instance, that "the West uses terrorism to sell Turkey weapons" or that "Turkey has borrowed only immoral stuff from the West."

The same attitude holds toward the United States. More than 90 percent of Turks do not read or write foreign languages well, and the AKP leadership is extremely and relentlessly negative toward America, and this is what Turks see in most of the media. When a group of men, all in their 20s, attacked the U.S. consulate in Istanbul in July, the response was not one of compassion or sympathy for America. Rather, almost 20 minutes after the attack, pro-government news outlets started to brim with allegations that the United States was responsible for the deaths of three Turkish cops who were slain by the terrorists. Nobody in the AKP stepped up to the plate to fight negative media spin against the United States.

The effect of this is that millions of young Turks, like the men who attacked the consulate, have seen America only through the AKP's foreign-policy rhetoric, including a very negative spin on the Iraq War. There is now a tsunami of young Turks ready to die while trying to kill Americans. The lesson for you, President-elect Obama, is clear: with such anti-Western rhetoric, and because Turkish attachment to the West is so tenuous, your strategy must be to constantly remind Turks that they belong to the West. You must recognize that while the United States cannot stop this entrenched anti-Americanism altogether, the AKP government can, and you should make this issue a part of your conversation with Ankara. Your policy ought to be zero tolerance toward official anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric in Turkey.

This step should be followed by positive reinforcement. For starters, you must get the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) issue right. Since 2004, the PKK has increased its terrorist attacks into Turkey from American-controlled Iraq. In 2007, the Bush administration started to help Turkey take on the issue by providing Ankara with intelligence support. Now there is an opportunity for you to take that a step further by bringing Iraqi Kurds on board with the United States and Turkey to tackle the PKK. The Iraqi Kurds successfully helped Ankara and Washington fight the PKK in the 1990s, in due course cementing their ties with Ankara. If you engage the Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK, you will open the path for the Iraqi Kurds and Ankara to build bridges with one another, while helping build the Turks' confidence in the United States as a friend.

But let's be honest. Even with this commitment, Turkish public attitudes toward the United States will change only if the Turkish government adopts positive rhetoric toward America. Until and unless the Turks hear from their government that the United States is a decent country helping them against the PKK—a fact oddly missing from the AKP's news briefs—and that Turkey shares values, institutions and interests with America, they will not adopt a favorable disposition toward the United States. In the meantime, America's standing in Turkey resembles a witch burning at the stake. The witch feeling the heat keeps yelling, "I'm not a witch." Of course, the crowd will not believe her unless someone from the crowd steps forward and says the person on fire is not a witch. That someone is the AKP government. I hope that you would ask the AKP to save America from the fire.

Cagaptay is a senior fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

© 2008

Turkey and Iraqi Kurds: Conflict or Cooperation?

Middle East Report N°81
13 November 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At a time when rising Arab-Kurdish tensions again threaten Iraq’s stability, neighbouring Turkey has begun to cast a large shadow over Iraqi Kurdistan. It has been a study in contrasts: Turkish jets periodically bomb suspected hideouts of the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan, PKK) in northern Iraq, and Ankara expresses alarm at the prospect of Kurdish independence, yet at the same time has significantly deepened its ties to the Iraqi Kurdish region. Both Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG, a term Turkey studiously avoids) would be well served by keeping ultra-nationalism at bay and continuing to invest in a relationship that, though fragile and buffeted by the many uncertainties surrounding Iraq, has proved remarkably pragmatic and fruitful.

Ankara’s policy toward Iraq is based on two core national interests: preserving that country’s territorial integrity and fighting the PKK, whose rebels use remote mountain areas on the border as sanctuary and staging ground for attacks inside Turkey. From Turkey’s perspective, Iraq’s disintegration would remove a critical counterweight to Iranian influence and, more ominously, herald the birth of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, thus threatening to inflame Kurdish nationalist passions inside Turkey. As a result, it has sought to prevent the sectarian conflict in Iraq’s centre from escalating, Iraqi Kurds from seceding and the PKK from prospering.

There is broad consensus in Turkey regarding these goals. However, opinions diverge on how best to achieve them. Members of the Kemalist-nationalist establishment – the Turkish armed forces, powerful parts of the bureaucracy, the Republican People’s Party and the Nationalist Movement Party – view the KRG and the Kurdish national ideal it represents as an existential threat. They are convinced that a far more aggressive posture toward the KRG is required to force it to stop protecting the PKK. As a result, they advocate isolating it diplomatically, limiting its authority to the pre-2003 internal boundaries and keeping it economically weak.

Pro-European liberal circles, the ruling religious-conservative Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) and Kurdish elites take a different view. They see the landlocked Kurdistan federal region as vulnerable and having little choice but to rely on Turkey for protection (for example, from a resurgent central Iraqi state) and economic prosperity. They view the area as a potential buffer between Turkey and the rest of Iraq which, in the event of a U.S. withdrawal, could revert to civil war. They believe the best way to combat the PKK is to persuade the KRG to do so. For these reasons, they advocate stronger diplomatic, political and economic ties with the KRG in order to extend Turkish influence, cement the Kurdistan federal region more solidly within Iraq and ensure action is taken against the PKK.

Divisions have yielded a measure of confusion, but the end-result has been a strikingly pragmatic and largely effective compromise between the AKP and the more traditional establishment, combining military pressure, politics, diplomacy and economic incentives. On the issue of Iraq’s political future, Turkey has come to accept that the question no longer is whether it will be a federation or a unitary state but rather what type of federation will arise and with what degree of decentralisation. It also has steered a middle course in the struggle over Kirkuk, disputed between Kurds, Arabs, Turkomans and others. In particular, it stopped relying on the Turkoman population for its main leverage points, instead insisting on preserving the city’s multi-ethnic/religious fabric. In so doing, it can hinder the Kurds’ exclusive claim to the oil-rich region without which the KRG would probably lack the economic autonomy necessary for genuine independence.

Turkey has proved adroit in other ways too. It has deepened economic ties with the Kurdish area while holding back on providing material aid to its energy sector or allowing the KRG to export oil and gas through its territory until Iraq has adopted a federal hydrocarbons law – a step which Ankara considers critical to that country’s territorial integrity. Finally, Turkey has mounted limited military cross-border operations against the PKK, designed more to pressure the KRG to take action and convince the U.S. to use its own leverage than to crush the Kurdish movement – overall, a far more effective way of dealing with this perennial challenge than serial Turkish bombing, whose military impact (as opposed to any temporary political benefits) is highly questionable. In short, Turkey has both pressured and reached out to Iraq’s Kurdish authorities, concluding this is the optimal way to contain the PKK, encourage Iraqi national reconciliation and tie the Kurds more closely with the central state.

There have been real benefits for the KRG as well. The slowly warming relationship is based on its realisation that U.S. forces may draw down significantly in the next two years, leaving the Kurds increasingly dependent on the federal government and neighbouring states such as Turkey and Iran. Under this scenario, Turkey would be a more useful partner to the Kurds than either Baghdad or Tehran, because of the prospect it offers of access to the European Union (which, even at Ankara’s current customs union relationship to Brussels, would exceed as an economic magnet anything even an oil-rich Iraq would offer); its availability as a trans-shipment country for Kurdish oil and gas; its ability to invest in major infrastructure projects; and the better quality of the goods it sells to Iraq’s Kurdistan federal region.

The result has been a (still fragile) victory for pragmatism over ultra-nationalism on both sides of the border. Rapprochement between Turkey and the KRG will not solve all problems, nor root out the unhelpful spasms of nationalist rhetoric that intermittently contaminate political discourse. More is required to lay the foundations of a lasting, stable relationship, including a peaceful, consensus-based solution to the Kirkuk question. But, amid the many uncertain prospects facing Iraq, this at least is one development to be welcomed and nurtured.

Istanbul/Brussels, 13 November 2008

For full report go to:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/iraq_iran_gulf/81_turkey_and_iraqi_kurds___conflict_or_cooperation.pdf

EU plan to loosen Russia’s grip on energy

By Joshua Chaffin in Brussels

Published: November 13 2008 15:51 | Last updated: November 13 2008 22:49

The European Commission has proposed a new company to bring gas from central Asia to Europe via the Caspian Sea in a move likely to raise tensions at Friday’s meeting of EU and Russian leaders.

The Caspian route, which would require the construction of a new pipeline, would enable the EU to bypass ­Russia in order to access the resources of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which last month announced it had ­discovered one of the world’s biggest gas fields.

The plan was launched as a centrepiece of an energy security plan that seeks to cut EU member states’ reliance on Russia.

The strategic energy review comes at a delicate time as the EU will on Friday try to restart talks with Russia over economic and energy agreements that were cancelled in the wake of its invasion of Georgia in August. It also comes after steep rises in energy prices, and internal squabbling over an EU climate package that would force member states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.

The EU’s strategic energy review also sets out plans for making buildings more energy efficient, bolstering emergency oil stocks, and connecting electricity from North Sea wind farms and Mediterranean solar panels to the European grid.

José Manuel Barroso, Commission president, said Europe risked “sleepwalking” into an energy crisis. “We have to address this urgently by increasing our energy efficiency and reducing our imports,” he said.

The proposals outline a network of pipelines that would carry gas from the Caspian region, including the Nabucco project, for a pipeline from eastern Turkey to Austria.

They also call for a new consortium, known as the Caspian Development Corporation, which would make a commitment to buy gas in the region, to encourage the development of new production, and invest in infrastructure, which is likely to include the trans-Caspian pipeline.

The CDC would bring in private sector companies, but would be backed by the European Investment Bank, the EU’s funding arm.

Its aim will be ultimately to bring 60bn-120bn cubic metres of gas per year to the EU – equivalent to 12-25 per cent of European consumption today.

The greatest obstacle to developing gas supply routes from the Caspian such as Nabucco has been the excessive reliance they place on gas from Azerbaijan, which may not be able to deliver the ambitious production growth plans it has set out, and is also being courted by Russia.

Iran and Iraq both have very large resources, but are unlikely to become significant gas exporters for the foreseeable future.

A pipeline across the ­Caspian would change the picture by opening up the resources of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, Turkmenistan’s president, has been responsive to overtures from western companies and officials, and the country has been using its increased negotiating power to raise the price at which it sells its gas to Gazprom, Russia’s state­controlled gas company. The price at which Gazprom purchases gas from Turkmenistan is still well below the price at which it sells gas to the EU, however.

Mr Barroso denied the Commission’s proposals were aimed at Russia, which supplies 42 per cent of Europe’s imported gas. “When it comes to energy security, our policy is not directed against any single country. It’s just a matter of being cautious,” he said.

Russia will be invited to use the proposed Caspian route to export its gas to the EU, said the Commission. Russia has opposed the idea of a trans-Caspian pipeline, and wants to increase its imports of gas from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

Infrastructure improvements:

●connect Baltic states to gas and electricity networks of the EU

●develop southern corridor to supply gas from Caspian and Middle East to EU

●improve LNG terminals and storage capacity

●develop blueprint for North Sea offshore grid, to bring offshore wind energy to EU

●closer links between EU and Mediterranean for gas and solar networks

●more north-south links for central and eastern European gas transport

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Eurozone officially in recession

The eurozone has officially slipped into recession after EU figures showed that the economy shrank by 0.2% in the third quarter.

This follows a 0.2% contraction in the 15-nation area in the previous quarter from April to June.

Two quarters of negative growth define a technical recession.

The news was widely anticipated and follows data showing that Germany and Italy, two of the biggest eurozone economies, are already in recession.

The BBC correspondent in Germany, Steve Rosenberg, said the figures were not a surprise.

"The Germans had their gloomy economic news [on Thursday] and as Germany is the dynamo of the European economy, when there are problems there, it drags the rest of the region down with it," he said.

European blues

On Thursday, figures showed the German economy, one of the world's largest, had shrunk 0.5% in the third quarter, following a 0.4% drop in the second quarter.

Spain's economy also shrank in the third quarter, the first such drop since 1993. Analysts are now convinced that a slump in household spending and a property crisis are likely to push the Spanish economy into recession as well next quarter.

The UK is expected to join the roll call of European countries in recession with a bleak Bank of England forecast suggesting that Britain is already there.

France is not faring too much better, but its economy did manage to expand in the third quarter much to the surprise of most analysts.

Official data showed that the French economy grew by 0.1% in the June to September period.

But analysts forecast worse to come for the countries in the region that use the euro.

With inflationary risks retreating, many expect further aggressive cuts in interest rates from the European Central Bank, with some predicting they could go as low as 2% - the same level they stood when the eurozone was formed in 1999.

"Looking ahead, we can expect further quarters of negative GDP growth, until the third quarter of 2009, simply because so far we have not had in the GDP figures the full impact of the credit market crisis," said Gilles Moec, senior economist, Bank of America.

"We also haven't yet seen the full impact of unemployment on consumer spending," he added, forecasting the eurozone region to shrink by 1% next year.

The member states of the eurozone are France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Irish Republic, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Malta, Greece, Austria, Finland and Cyprus.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7729018.stm

Published: 2008/11/14 11:05:10 GMT

EU seeks to expand energy grids

The European Commission has unveiled plans to diversify the EU's energy imports and reduce dependence on Russia, the main gas supplier.

The EU will remain dependent on imported fossil fuels for many years to come, the Strategic Energy Review says.

Some member states "are overwhelmingly dependent on one single supplier," the document says, without naming Russia.

It urges the EU to develop energy infrastructure in the Baltic states and the Mediterranean region.

It also wants the EU to build a North Sea offshore grid, to link up national electricity grids in north-western Europe and plug in the numerous planned offshore wind farms.

"It should become, together with the Mediterranean Ring and the Baltic Interconnection project, one of the building blocks of a future European supergrid," the strategy paper says.

A Mediterranean energy ring - interconnecting electricity and gas networks - "is essential to develop the region's vast solar and wind energy potential," it says.

Eastern priorities

Currently imports account for 61% of EU gas consumption - and 42% of those imports come from Russia. By 2020, the commission says, gas imports are expected to grow to 73% of consumption.

So another priority is to get firm commitments from gas suppliers in the Middle East and Central Asia, including their involvement in gas pipeline construction.

"A southern gas corridor must be developed for the supply of gas from Caspian and Middle Eastern sources, which could potentially supply a significant part of the EU's future needs," the commission says.

Two major gas pipeline projects - Nabucco and South Stream - are being developed to deliver gas to southern Europe, from Central Asia and Russia, respectively.



The commission's proposals will be considered by EU governments and the European Parliament, who have to sign off specific EU projects.

Presenting the package on Thursday, EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said energy prices had risen by an average of 15% in the EU in the last year alone.

"We must break the vicious energy cycle of increased energy consumption and increased imports," he said.

One way to do that is to stick to the EU's green energy goals, contained in the climate change package, he said.

Meeting the targets on renewables and energy efficiency would cut EU energy imports by 26%, he predicted.

'Energy solidarity'

He also highlighted the total reliance of eight EU states on Russia for their gas as "a problem we must address". He was speaking on the eve of EU-Russia talks in Nice, France.

"We must shield European citizens from the risk that external suppliers cannot honour their commitments," he said.

A gas price war between Russia and Ukraine in the winter of 2006 disrupted gas supplies to some EU states.

"Stronger solidarity is also essential in boosting interconnections inside the EU, so that member states can help each other out in tackling shortfalls.

"And we need a more common approach with third countries. If we can't have a single voice as Europeans we must at least have a single message," Mr Barroso said.

The recent volatility in oil and gas prices underlines the need for more transparency in member states' data on energy stocks, the commission says.

It wants data on commercial oil stocks in the EU to be published weekly. Data on member states' strategic oil stocks is already published by the EU.

The commission does not call for obligatory strategic gas stocks, saying they are at least five times more expensive than oil stocks.





Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7727028.stm

Published: 2008/11/13 14:04:33 GMT

Kurdistan: the other Iraq

By Anna Fifield

Published: November 11 2008 20:08 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:08

In one of the oldest tea houses in Irbil, a cavernous room of hissing kettles that spills into the spice and shampoo shops of the souq, Ali and his friend Mohammad personify the Kurdish dilemma. Ali, a Kurd with a plush moustache dressed in the region’s traditional baggy open suit, sits on a bench drinking tea with Mohammad, an Arab electrical goods merchant who has driven from Baghdad in search of cheaper supplies.

Audio slideshow: The Kurdish share their stories and concerns with the FT’s Anna Fifield

“Kirkuk is Kurdish – the population is Kurdish, so Kirkuk is Kurdish,” says Ali, referring to the oil-rich city that lies just outside the northern Iraqi province but was historically part of Kurdistan. Asked his opinion, Mohammad looks around warily as the half-dozen tea-drinking Kurds stop their conservations to listen in and simply says: “I think our leaders know better than I do.”

This diplomatic answer belies the potential of Kirkuk to become the next big flashpoint in Iraq. For while sectarian violence has dropped sharply this year, stemming the slide into civil war and relieving pressure on the US military, the dispute over Kirkuk underlines the fragility of the country and the challenge that Barack Obama, the president-elect, will face in Iraq.

Whether Mr Obama will be able to fulfil his campaign promise of bringing US troops home within 16 months of taking office will partly depend on what happens in the oil-rich city – and therefore on the ability of the US to mediate a lasting compromise over Kirkuk’s status.

But tensions are rising over whether the city belongs in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region or in Iraq proper. “For many Kurds, it has become a rallying point for an autonomous Kurdistan and for the rights of Kurdish people inside Iraq. And for many Arabs, it has become a rallying cry for the unity of the country,” says a senior US official in Baghdad. “The challenge is to get both sides to calm down and have a rational discussion.”

This will become a pressing foreign policy concern for the next US administration not just because the Kirkuk dispute has the potential to pit Arab against Kurd and provoke intervention from neighbouring states. It could also harm Washington’s relations with its closest allies in Iraq – the Kurdish authorities.

Kirkuk, together with other nearby oil towns, was “Arabised” by Saddam Hussein, who forced Kurds to leave and moved in Arabs from Iraq’s south in an effort to change the demographics. Now Kurdistan, whose people were killed by the thousands under Saddam, wants the cities back. “For us it’s not about the oil – the oil revenue will go back to the Iraqi people – it’s symbolic, it’s about the injustices that have been done to us,” says Fuad Hussein, chief of staff to Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish president. “When we think about the situation of Kirkuk, we all feel Kirkuki.”

Kurdistan, a fertile, rocky region where Iraq meets Iran and Turkey, already has several big oil deposits but several more lie just outside its current borders. The Kirkuk field is thought to have a production capacity of about 1m barrels a day. Under the constitution’s revenue-sharing formula, Kurdistan receives 17 per cent of all Iraqi oil revenue, but many Kurds think their economy deserves more. Some Arab politicians, meanwhile, are calling for the Kurds’ share to be reduced to 12 per cent.

The Kurdistan regional government is pushing for a vote to allow Kirkuk residents to decide whether they become part of the northern region. But the disputed territory has become so sensitive that Kirkuk will be excluded from nationwide provincial polls due to be held before January 31 as an Iraqi parliamentary commission examines the demographic changes that have taken place there. It is due to report back by March.

Rochdi Younsi, Middle East analyst at the Eurasia Group think-tank, says the electoral delay benefits the Kurds, who will retain control over the disputed areas during the deadlock. “Unless there is a concrete international effort to address the Kirkuk question, the risk of instability in the northern part of Iraq will heighten and the dispute among various sectarian groups claiming historical ownership of the city will erupt again,” Mr Younsi wrote recently.

The disputes have stoked ethnic tensions in northern Iraq. Kurdish troops, known as peshmerga, have reportedly moved beyond the boundaries of the Kurdistan region and into ethnically mixed areas, erecting Kurdish flags at checkpoints in acts that worry Arab residents of these areas.

Some diplomats in Irbil question suggestions of any land grab, saying peshmerga have been patrolling outside the region’s boundaries for some time. Mr Hussein, the president’s aide, says that Kurds simply serve in the national security forces. He characterises the common view as: “When a Kurd is in the police, he is a peshmerga, but when an Arab is there, he is an Iraqi soldier.”

The United Nations has suggested giving 32 per cent of the Kirkuk council to Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen, leaving 4 per cent for Christians. Kurdish factions would also get the first pick for governor, deputy governor, and head of the provincial council.

But Kurds oppose any power-sharing arrangement that would not reflect what they believe is their majority. Kurdish officials are acutely aware of the issue’s potential to explode. “We have made a lot of concessions for the sake of greater Iraq but now, instead of supporting us, some people are trying to blame the Kurds for the problem remaining unsolved,” says Falah Mustafa, head of the department of foreign relations.

Kurdish leaders have long held up their region as a role model for the rest of Iraq. It has functioning democratic institutions, the government is relatively secular and its economy is ticking over. Irbil became a partner in the US-backed central government in Baghdad following the 2003 invasion of Iraq – the national president, Jalal Talabani, is Kurdish – and the US wanted to champion Kurdistan as an example of how democracy could be made to work in the Middle East.

But, five years after the invasion, Kurds are feeling short-changed by the Bush administration, which they say has not sufficiently rewarded them for their support. “They have done nothing for us,” says one senior Kurdish official, calling for Washington to encourage American companies to invest. “We are the success story of the US in Iraq. All of Iraq could be like us.”

Washington cites a lack of democratic development and endemic corruption as threats for the future of Kurdistan. “A lot of people in Baghdad are looking at Kurdistan not as a model for the future but for the mistakes they have to avoid,” says one senior American official in Baghdad. The Kurds, he adds, are “without a doubt . . . in the best position in their history. The big question among Kurds right now is, what next for us?”

The way that Irbil exercised its authority in Kirkuk has not been encouraging. Analysts say that the Kurdish government was given an opportunity to prove its ability to govern when the US in effect handed them control of the city in 2003. But the Kurdish authorities sidelined the Arab and Turkmen minorities rather than bringing them into the fold.

The extent of corruption has undermined confidence in the Kurdish parties ruling the north. Ordinary Kurds privately complain that, to succeed, they must belong to one of the “two circles” – that revolving around the Talabani family and their Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or that associated with the Barzanis and the Kurdistan Democratic party.

The two families largely control business and politics in the region, offering preferential treatment for their relatives and allies. “Some people are living the high life but other people are so desperate,” Ali says in the tea shop. “Kurds don’t like it but what can we do about it?”

So sensitive has the issue become, even foreigners know where the red lines are. One British businessman working in Irbil becomes visibly angry when asked about corruption. “Why do you ask such questions?” he asks, his voice rising several decibels. “These kinds of questions can create a lot of problems for us.”

The government says it will introduce laws and educational programmes to tackle the problem. But Karam Rahim, editor of Hawlati, the region’s biggest independent paper, suggests the US could have an influence when provincial and regional parliamentary elections are due to be held.

“We thought that the Americans would make our government more democratic and more transparent,” says Mr Rahim. “The US must choose between two options – they can support Talabani and Barzani, or they can support the Kurdish people.”




TEHRAN STRENGTHENS ECONOMIC TIES

By backing Shia groups, Iran has long exerted influence over Iraqi politics. But the parties of Iraqi Kurdistan have also been allies of Tehran, whose reach is growing. “There is a lot of concern about Iran and Iran’s interests in Kurdistan,” says one US official.

Of the $7bn (£4.5bn, €5.6bn) in goods that Iran sent to Iraq last year, about $1.2bn-worth was destined for Kurdistan, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency. The figure is projected to rise to $3bn this year. Two of the three transit routes between Iran and Iraq are in Iraqi Kurdistan. Flights between Irbil and Urumia, capital of the Iranian province of Western Azerbaijan, are set to begin soon.

The US accuses Tehran of sending arms into Iraq, which Iran denies. Kurdish officials say they welcome the right involvement. “If they can help the people of Iraq, then that’s one issue,” says Falah Mustafa, head of the department for foreign relations. “But if they meddle in Iraqi affairs, we don’t believe that is in keeping with our policies of non-interference.”







A LONG SEARCH FOR STATEHOOD

● An estimated 15m to 20m Kurds, a largely Sunni Muslim people, live in the area straddling Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Armenia.


● Iraqi Kurdistan – slightly larger than the Netherlands and with a population of 4m – enjoys relative economic stability, helped by investment in construction and oil.


● Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in retaliation for their support of Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

● After the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqi Kurds gained significant autonomy; this was later formalised under Iraq’s 2005 constitution.


● Rivalry between the Kurdish Democratic party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan led to civil war in the mid-1990s. In 1998 the two sides came to a power-sharing agreement.



● Kurdistan is a cause of friction between Iraq and Turkey, which has carried out military raids on northern Iraq against the separatist Kurdish Workers’ party (PKK).

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Film takes Ataturk off his pedestal

By Delphine Strauss and Funja Guler in Ankara

Published: November 11 2008 01:02 | Last updated: November 11 2008 01:02

At 9.05am on Monday sirens sounded across Turkey, traffic halted and flags were lowered to half mast to mark the death, 70 years earlier, of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk – venerated as founder of the modern republic.

Thousands of students and office workers queued through the afternoon to pay their respects and lay flowers at Anitkabir, Ataturk’s mausoleum in Ankara, to a backdrop of military music and booming recordings of his speeches.

But even among the stiff annual rituals and omnipresent official portraits, a new film has this month sparked controversy by portraying the national hero as a hard-drinking, hard-smoking womaniser plagued with doubts and all-too human weakness. The documentary, blending original footage and photographs with re-enactments, carries the leader’s childhood name, Mustafa, rather than the honorific “Ataturk” (meaning “father of the Turks”) later bestowed on him. It highlights Ataturk’s political successes, but also portrays him as a lonely, ambitious boy, a failed family man, a leader frustrated at Turkey’s slow modernisation, and an old man fretting about his legacy.

The facts around which the film is woven are largely known and undisputed. But the presentation has outraged hardline Kemalists, with the most extreme critics dubbing it part of an international conspiracy to discredit Turkey.

Can Dundar, its director, has also been confronted with more specific complaints – ranging from the use of a Greek actor to play Ataturk as a child to the inclusion of a photograph thought to make the leader look too short. Other critics have dubbed the documentary a well-calculated commercial ploy, albeit one that now appears to have backfired.

Teachers, worried about deviating from the official history, have been cancelling school cinema trips.

Mustafa has scared off a corporate sponsor, the mobile phone operator Turkcell, which was apparently worried about annoying subscribers. “This film is not portraying Ataturk as a hero, as a saviour of this country. That’s what we wanted,” a spokesman for Turkcell said, when asked to explain the company’s decision to withdraw its sponsorship.

Supporters say the film is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the stilted, two-dimensional version of Ataturk’s life kept fossilised in the official school curriculum. Mehmet Ali Birand, a prominent journalist, argues critics of the film wanted “an elegy to Ataturk” rather than the more realistic portrait they are getting. “I loved the Mustafa that Can [Dundar] presented to us, with his weaknesses, with his love affairs ... with his fear of the darkness. I loved him better than his statues.”

Mr Dundar – whose previous work has been impeccably secularist in outlook – says the controversy shows that people are hungry for debate on Ataturk’s legacy.

“It’s like being in a minefield,” he says. “I walked in and set off an explosion. But I think it’s going to be positive ... because this film is out of the official line.”

At the core of the debate lie fears that Ataturk’s legacy – enshrined in a constitution based on rigid principles of nationalism, secularism and a centralised state – is under threat from a religious-minded governing party and growing middle class.

Many visiting Anitkabir on Monday came to support old-style Kemalism, in protest at the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) they suspect of plotting to bring religion into public life.

Carrying one corner of a huge Ataturk portrait was Serdah Hos, member of an anti-government non-governmental organisation called Biz Kac Kisiyiz (How Many Are We). He was dubious about the film, saying, “It makes him look like a dictator and it’s not true.”

A woman in her 50s declared: “We want to show that we are defending Ataturk’s principles. I haven’t seen the film yet and I don’t want to after the criticism I’ve read.”

But reflecting the contradictions in Turkish society, some more devout visitors approached the mausoleum openly praying for the leader who, himself atheist, laid the foundations of the secular republic.

One student keen to see the film was Burak, who said he was there “to show that we’re following Ataturk’s ways”. He was visiting the mausoleum in a group of 1,000 yellow-shirted supporters of Fenerbahce football club – another Turkish institution that inspires fanatical devotion.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

The Next President

The New York Times Editorial
The Next President

An American with the name Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a white woman and a black man he barely knew, raised by his grandparents far outside the stream of American power and wealth, has been elected the 44th president of the United States.

Showing extraordinary focus and quiet certainty, Mr. Obama swept away one political presumption after another to defeat first Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be president so badly that she lost her bearings, and then John McCain, who forsook his principles for a campaign built on anger and fear.

His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world.

Mr. Obama spoke candidly of the failure of Republican economic policies that promised to lift all Americans but left so many millions far behind. He committed himself to ending a bloody and pointless war. He promised to restore Americans’ civil liberties and their tattered reputation around the world.

With a message of hope and competence, he drew in legions of voters who had been disengaged and voiceless. The scenes Tuesday night of young men and women, black and white, weeping and cheering in Chicago and New York and in Atlanta’s storied Ebenezer Baptist Church were powerful and deeply moving.

Mr. Obama inherits a terrible legacy. The nation is embroiled in two wars — one of necessity in Afghanistan and one of folly in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s challenge will be to manage an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without igniting new conflicts so the Pentagon can focus its resources on the real front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

The campaign began with the war as its central focus. By Election Day, Americans were deeply anguished about their futures and the government’s failure to prevent an economic collapse fed by greed and an orgy of deregulation. Mr. Obama will have to move quickly to impose control, coherence, transparency and fairness on the Bush administration’s jumbled bailout plan.

His administration will also have to identify all of the ways that Americans’ basic rights and fundamental values have been violated and rein that dark work back in. Climate change is a global threat, and after years of denial and inaction, this country must take the lead on addressing it. The nation must develop new, cleaner energy technologies, to reduce greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Obama also will have to rally sensible people to come up with immigration reform consistent with the values of a nation built by immigrants and refugees.

There are many other urgent problems that must be addressed. Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance, including some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens — children of the working poor. Other Americans can barely pay for their insurance or are in danger of losing it along with their jobs. They must be protected.

Mr. Obama will now need the support of all Americans. Mr. McCain made an elegant concession speech Tuesday night in which he called on his followers not just to honor the vote, but to stand behind Mr. Obama. After a nasty, dispiriting campaign, he seemed on that stage to be the senator we long respected for his service to this country and his willingness to compromise.

That is a start. The nation’s many challenges are beyond the reach of any one man, or any one political party.

Obama wins historic US election

Democratic Senator Barack Obama has been elected the first black president of the United States.

"It's been a long time coming, but tonight... change has come to America," the president-elect told a jubilant crowd at a victory rally in Chicago.

His rival John McCain accepted defeat, saying "I deeply admire and commend" Mr Obama. He called on his supporters to lend the next president their goodwill.

The BBC's Justin Webb said the result would have a profound impact on the US.

"On every level America will be changed by this result... [it] will never be the same," he said.


Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

McCain: 'We must work together'

Mr Obama appeared with his family, and his running mate Joe Biden, before a crowd of tens of thousands in Grant Park, Chicago.

Many people in the vast crowd, which stretched back far into the Chicago night, wept as Mr Obama spoke.

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer," he said.

He said he had received an "extraordinarily gracious" call from Mr McCain.

He praised the former Vietnam prisoner of war as a "brave and selfless leader".


OBAMA GAINS


Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada


"He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine," the victor said.

He had warm words for his family, announcing to his daughters: "Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House."

But he added: "Even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. But America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."

Hours after Mr Obama's victory was announced, crowds were still celebrating in Chicago and on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

From red to blue

Mr Obama captured the key battleground states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, before breaking through the winning threshold of 270 electoral college votes at 0400 GMT, when projections showed he had also taken California and a slew of other states.

HAVE YOUR SAY I find myself strangely emotional about this. I want to go wake up my neighbours and hug them Amy Scullane, Boston

Then came the news that he had also seized Florida, Virginia and Colorado - all of which voted Republican in 2004 - turning swathes of the map from red to blue.

Several other key swing states are hanging in the balance.

In Indiana and North Carolina, with most of the vote counted, there was less than 0.5% between the two candidates.

However, the popular vote remains close. At 0600 GMT it stood at 51.3% for the Democratic Senator from Illinois, against 47.4% for Arizona Senator Mr McCain.

The main developments include:

Mr Obama is projected to have seized Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada - all Republican wins in 2004.
He is also projected to have won: Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Delaware, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Rhode Island, California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon.
Mr McCain is projected to have won: Alaska, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota.
Turnout was reported to be extremely high - in some places "unprecedented".
The Democrats made gains in the Senate race, seizing seats from the Republicans in Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado. They also increased their majority of the House of Representatives.
Exit polls suggest the economy was the major deciding factor for six out of 10 voters.
Nine out of 10 said the candidates' race was not important to their vote, the Associated Press reported. Almost as many said age did not matter.
Several states reported very high turnout. It was predicted 130 million Americans, or more, would vote - more than for any election since 1960.

Many people said they felt they had voted in a historic election - and for many African-Americans the moment was especially poignant.



Congratulations... You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life

President George W Bush


John Lewis, an activist in the civil rights era who was left beaten on an Alabama bridge 40 years ago, told Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church: "This is a great night. It is an unbelievable night. It is a night of thanksgiving."

Besides winning the presidency, the Democrats tightened their grip on Congress.

The entire US House of Representatives and a third of US Senate seats were up for grabs.

Democrats won several Senate seats from the Republicans, but seemed unlikely to gain the nine extra they wanted to reach the 60-seat "super-majority" that could prevent Republicans blocking legislation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7709978.stm

Published: 2008/11/05 07:31:45 GMT

DTP’yi eleştirelim de...

ORAL ÇALIŞLAR
TÜRKİYE / 04/11/2008

DTP’nin Abdullah Öcalan’a yapıldığı söylenen kötü muameleden yola çıkarak geliştirdiği, desteklediği, onayladığı eylemler, giderek sertleşmeye ve aşırı şiddet görüntülerine dönüşmeye başladı. Dünkü yazımda DTP’lilerin frene basmaları gerektiğine dikkat çekmiş ve üsluplarını yumuşatmalarının yararlı olacağını yazmıştım. DTP ile AKP arasındaki tartışmanın bir düello havasına dönüşmesinden DTP’lilerin de sorumlu olduğunu belirtmiştim.
Bu ısrarımı sürdürüyorum ve DTP’lilerin Güneydoğu’dan başlayarak tüm Türkiye’ye yayılan şiddet eylemlerinin durdurulması için bir an önce harekete geçmeleri gerekiyor. Sokaklarını taş ve molotofkokteyli atan çocukların doldurduğu görüntüler, ülkemizdeki tüm kesimlerin ruh halini olumsuz yönde etkiliyor. Bu olumsuz ruh hali çözüm için atılabilecek adımları da zorlaştıracak bir ortama neden oluyor.
Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın Hakkâri’de ‘Ya Sev Ya Terk Et’ anlamına gelecek konuşmasına cevap veren Ahmet Türk’ü dikkatle dinledim. AKP ile bölgede giriştikleri rekabetin de etkisiyle yaptığı konuşmanın bir bölümünü, normal karşılamak mümkün. Sonuç olarak bölgedeki rakibi AKP’yi alt edecek bir kamuoyu desteği sağladıklarını söylüyor ve kendine güvenli bir dille Başbakan Erdoğan’a meydan okuyor.
Başbakan’ın ‘Tek bayrak, tek millet, tek vatan, ya bunları kabul edersiniz ya bu ülkeyi terk edersiniz’ şeklinde yaptığı çağrıya verdiği cevap da, haklılık içeriyordu. Ahmet Türk, ‘Kürt sorununda açılım yapınız, bunu konuşalım, diyalog geliştirelim’ şeklinde bir değerlendirmede bulunarak, çözüme yatkın oldukları mesajını verdi.
***
Başbakan’ın Güneydoğu gezileriyle iyice gerginleşen siyaset alanının aşırı şiddetli ve
çatışmacı demeçlerden kurtulması gerekiyor. ‘Kürt sorunu’ öfkeyle ve karşılıklı meydan okumalarla çözülebilecek bir sorun değil. Yerel seçim çekişmeleriyle kışkırtılacak bir sorun da değil.
Başından beri ifade ettiğimiz bir konu var. AKP, DTP’yi ‘Kürt sorunu’nda bir rakip olarak değil, sorunun çözümü için bir imkân olarak görse, Türkiye’de de, bölgede de daha etkili olacak. Geçen seçimlerde bölgede başarılı bir netice elde etmesinin en büyük
nedeni, diğer muhalefet partilerinin bölgede gerginlik çıkarmak isteyen çağrılarına kulak tıkamasıydı.
Genelkurmay’dan gelen, “Kuzey Irak’a kara operasyonu yapalım” önerilerine, “Sorun Türkiye’nin içindedir, gözümüzü içeriye dönelim” cevabını verebilmesiydi. Öfke yerine, soruna sükûnet için çözüm aramak niyetini dillendirmesiydi.
Başbakan, son dönemde ‘savaşçı’ sert bir dil kullanmaya başladı. DTP’liler de aynen karşılık veriyorlar. Sonuç olarak soruna çözüm aramak yerine kavgayı yükselten bir ortama doğru hızla yol alıyoruz.
***
‘Kürt sorunu’ soysal ve siyasi bir sorundur. Siyasetçinin bu konuda yeni şeyler söylemesi gerekiyor.
Başbakan’ın sonunda öfkesine yenik düşerek ‘ya sev ya terk et’ üslubuna gelmesi, işin giderek çığrından çıkmakta olduğu endişesine neden oluyor.
Bu konu öfkeyle halledilecek bir konu değil.
25 yıl boyunca bu soruna öfke egemen oldu.
Öfke, öfkeyi ve karşılıklı şiddeti tırmandırdı.
Tablo ortada, binlerce insanımızı, milyarlarca dolarımızı kaybettik. Milyonlarca insan köyünü
terk etti, çaresiz bir şekilde şehirlere eklendiler.
Başbakan’ın ‘Kürt sorunu’nu tanımak ve onun gereğini anlayacak çözümler üretmek yerine
Soğuk Savaş döneminin üslubuna dönmesi, işleri zorlaştırıyor. Dünya artık başka bir yerde. Siz kendi yurttaşlarınıza ana dil gibi en temel konuda bile yasakçı tutumu bugünün dünyasında sürdüremezsiniz, sürdürürseniz de dünyanın desteğini alamazsınız. Kürt kimliğine ilişkin projelerin bir an önce geliştirilmesi ve bir çözüm paketiyle kamuoyunun önüne çıkılmasının zamanı geldi geçiyor bile...
DTP’ye istediğiniz kadar öfkelenin, PKK’nın şiddetini istediğiniz kadar kınayın... Eğer soruna çözüm üretecek yeni adımlar atılmazsa, daha çok öfkelenir, daha çok ‘ya sev ya terk et’ üslubuyla zaman tüketiriz.
Yazık bu ülkeye...

Google's New Monopoly?

By James Gibson
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A21

Last week, Google settled a controversial copyright case by agreeing to pay tens of millions in licensing fees to authors and publishers, with more to come. At first glance, it looks like this great champion of the free flow of information has caved to copyright interests. But in fact, Google may be better off with a settlement than an outright win. Before the court approves this agreement, then, it must consider the deal's anti-competitive effects.

A little history: In 2002, Google launched a project called Book Search. Its ambitious goal was to make every book in the English language text-searchable, just like Google aims to do -- and largely does -- with Web pages. The project held great promise; anyone with an Internet connection could be transformed into an armchair researcher, with the world's library at his or her fingertips.

But to realize this goal, Google had to machine-scan the texts of every book it would include. And because scanning is a kind of copying, a question arose: Did Google need a license -- or, rather, millions of licenses -- from those who own the copyrights to the books?

Google originally maintained that no licenses were needed.

Its argument was based on copyright's fair use doctrine. In essence, Google said: Yes, there's some copying going on -- but our Book Search is a socially valuable service, and finding and paying all those copyright owners would be too burdensome. We'll have to give up the project if we're forced to get permission.


Claims of fair use are common in the Internet age, when unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials happens all the time. Not so common are actual court rulings on such claims. Damages in copyright cases can be frighteningly high, and questions of fair use can be terribly indeterminate. This means that few defendants have the guts to see their fair use claims all the way through; once they get a little skin in the game, they frequently adopt an attitude of "license, don't litigate."

But Google seemed like a copyright owner's worst nightmare: a risk-taking iconoclast with deep pockets, unafraid to litigate licensing issues all the way to the Supreme Court. So the copyright industry held its breath as the controversy played out, wondering if it had met its match.

Viewed in this light, the settlement looks like a setback for Google. In the game of brinksmanship, Google blinked -- losing its nerve like so many copyright defendants do. In reality, however, settling probably puts Google in a better position than it would have been if it had won its case in court.

Here's why: Google's concession has made it more difficult for anyone to invoke fair use for book searches. The settlement itself is proof that a company can pay licensing fees and still turn a profit. So now no one can convincingly argue that scanning a book requires no license. If Microsoft starts its own book search service and claims fair use, the courts will say, "Hey, Google manages to pay for this sort of thing. What makes you so special?"

By settling the case, Google has made it much more difficult for others to compete with its Book Search service. Of course, Google was already in a dominant position because few companies have the resources to scan all those millions of books. But even fewer have the additional funds needed to pay fees to all those copyright owners. The licenses are essentially a barrier to entry, and it's possible that only Google will be able to surmount that barrier.

Sure, Google now has to share its profits with publishers. But when a company has no competitors, there are plenty of profits to share.

James Gibson is an associate professor and director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law. His e-mail address is jgibson@richmond.edu.

Nagorno-Karabakh agreement signed

Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed a joint agreement aimed at resolving their dispute over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh at talks near Moscow.

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sarkisian, agreed to intensify their efforts to find a political settlement.

It is the first time in nearly 15 years that such a deal has been reached.

Sporadic clashes have continued over Nagorno-Karabakh, despite the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 1994.

Before the truce, several years of fighting had left some 30,000 people dead and forced more than one million from their homes.

In 2006, an overwhelming majority of Nagorno-Karabakh residents - mostly ethnic Armenians - voted in favour of declaring a sovereign state. The declaration has not been internationally recognised.

'Political settlement'

At Sunday's talks hosted at Meiendorf Castle, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed "to speed up further moves in the negotiating process" over Nagorno-Karabakh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a statement.





"They will facilitate the improvement of the situation in the South Caucasus and establishment of stability and security in the region through a political settlement of the conflict based on the principles and norms of international law and the decisions and documents adopted in this framework," he said.

The two country's foreign ministers would work with Russia, the US and France, co-chairmen of the Minsk Group of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict, he added.

Mr Sarkisian and Mr Aliyev made no comment.

Hopes of a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia were first raised in 2001, after a series of meetings between Armenia's former President, Robert Kocharyan, and Heydar Aliyev, the late Azeri leader. However, the talks and subsequent occasional meetings have come to nothing.

In March, the OSCE said it was sending a mission to Nagorno-Karabakh following serious clashes which reportedly left several soldiers dead on both sides.

Correspondents say Russia's brief war with Georgia in August has given impetus to international efforts to resolve disputes in the Caucasus, a region where Moscow is seeking greater influence.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7705067.stm

Published: 2008/11/02 17:13:58 GMT