How Europe can be heard in Washington

By Jeremy Shapiro and Nick Witney

As Europeans gossip and conspire over the new post-Lisbon appointments to represent the European Union’s external face, they know only too well how global power is slipping away from them. European elites agonise over the spectre of irrelevance.

No doubt it was this anxiety that impelled EU leaders to press for the EU/US summit meeting in Washington earlier this month. With the guard about to change in Brussels, this was never going to be a productive encounter. The visitors got what they deserved – 90 minutes of the president’s time, and a lunch with Vice- President Joe Biden.

At least the experience may help Europeans take on board two important truths about Barack Obama, the man whose election so delighted them a year ago. First, his foreign policy strategy is to reposition America for the post-American world. Understanding that the US’s brief moment of global dominance has come and gone, he aims to ensure America gets its way by forging tactical alliances. He will work with China on the global economy, with Russia on nuclear disarmament, and with anyone else who can help serve the US’s interest.

Second, his self-declared pragmatism means a rigorous approach to how he allocates his time and energy. He will attend to those who can be useful, not the merely sympathetic. Glad-handing Europeans with nothing to offer will be a low priority.

For Europeans these are difficult truths to absorb. But they will not again carry weight in Washington until they grasp that a post-American world requires a post-American Europe. Such a Europe must discard a set of damaging illusions that, 20 years on from the end of the cold war, still shape its approaches to the US.

The first such illusion is of continuing dependence on US protection. With the Russian military a shadow of its Soviet predecessor, this is no longer the case. But it underlies Europe’s habitual deference to the US.

The second illusion is to mistake shared values for a transatlantic identity of interests. This encourages the widespread European belief that if Americans act in uncongenial ways this is a product of their naiveté – requiring Europeans tactfully to set them back on course.

These two misperceptions lead to a third – that the need to preserve a close and harmonious transatlantic relationship must always trump any more specific European objective. But a vital and healthy transatlantic relationship requires tough negotiations to establish compromises that work for both sides – even if, as the often-combative trade and competition policy dealings across the Atlantic show, that may mean the occasional row.

Such conciliatory attitudes lead European elites to feel – their fourth illusion – that confronting the US from a joint European position would be counter-productive, if not indecent. So the EU member states opt to do their defence and security business under US direction in Nato – and prioritise their bilateral links with Washington over almost everything else. The British may pride themselves on the most celebrated “special relationship”, but most other European nations also quietly believe they have a special “in” with Washington which is the best route for promoting their national interests.

Americans find all this attention-seeking tiresome, but will naturally not pass up the opportunities to divide and rule.

Some Europeans think the answer lies in a proper EU/US strategic dialogue, and they have plenty of proposals for new forums and further summitry to force such a dialogue. But that requires the EU, collectively, to have something to say, which in turn means Europeans must steel themselves to discuss, within the EU, the big strategic issues on which Europe will need to be able to engage the US in the post-American world.

Afghanistan should be an object lesson. European leaders have been happy to ignore this intractable issue in their regular EU meetings, delegating the problem to Nato and American leadership. They now find themselves with over 30,000 troops committed to a troubled campaign, and consigned to the ante-room while they wait to learn the new American strategy, which they must then defend to their publics as their own.

Russia and the Middle East are two more items on an unappetising list of problems that Europeans must address, not in the spirit of second-guessing where the US wants to go, but to assert common European positions. Failing that, even the most charismatic and forceful new EU leaders will find even photo-opportunities in Washington, never mind serious attention, in increasingly short supply.

Jeremy Shapiro is a director of research at the Brookings Institution. Nick Witney is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations

Walkout at Iran leader's speech

Diplomats have walked out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by the Iranian president in which he described Israel as "totally racist".

Dozens of delegates got up and left, moments after two protesters wearing coloured wigs disrupted the start of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech.

Diplomats who remained applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.

France said it was a "hate speech" and the US called it "vile". Some countries had boycotted the meeting altogether.

The walkout is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is supposed to do best - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

UN dismay

The walkout by delegates from at least 30 countries happened within minutes of the start of the speech.

Most officials planned to return later to participate in the rest of the conference, although the Czech delegation announced it would join the boycott.

One of the two protesters escorted out of the conference hall managed to throw a red clown's nose at the Iranian president, as they yelled "racist, racist" as he stood at the podium.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East after World War II "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine".

He continued, through an interpreter: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room," the Associated Press news agency reported.

British Ambassador Peter Gooderham, also among those who left, said "such inflammatory rhetoric has no place whatsoever in a United Nations conference addressing the whole issue of racism and how to address it."

Speaking to the BBC Radio 4's PM programme, he said of the Iranian leader's accusation of Israeli racism: "That is a charge we unreservedly condemn and so we had no hesitation at that point in leaving the conference hall."

The US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and New Zealand had all boycotted the conference being held in Geneva, in protest at Mr Ahmadinejad's appearance.

His comments were described as "an absolute disgrace" by Israeli President Shimon Peres, attending a Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Jerusalem.

Israel had earlier recalled its ambassador to Switzerland.

Mr Ahmadinejad told a press conference after his speech that the countries boycotting the forum were showing "arrogance and selfishness".

The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said the speech was "inaccurate", as well as showing disregard towards the UN, and "does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people".

Speaking at UN headquarters in New York, he said: "We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech."

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had warned that French delegates would walk out if the forum was used as a platform to attack Israel. The whole point of these meetings is to represent the views of your nation and challenge the views of others Gavin, Brussels

Speaking after the walkout, he said: "The defence of human rights and the fight against all types of racism are too important for the United Nations not to unite against all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message.

"Faced with attitudes like that which the Iranian president has just adopted, no compromise is possible."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed dismay at the boycotts and the speech, saying Mr Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite".

Hardliners win N Cyprus election

Turkish Cypriot nationalists have swept to victory in a parliamentary election in northern Cyprus that could hamper peace talks with Greek Cypriots.

The right-wing National Unity Party (UBP), which favours closer links with Turkey rather than EU membership, has won 44% of the vote.

That leaves the ruling Republican Turkish Party (CTP) of leader Mehmet Ali Talat with only 29%.

Mr Talat retains his position, but his hands will now be tied at peace talks.

Cypriot problem

Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded the island in response to an attempt by Greek Cypriots to make it part of Greece.

Frustration at the slow progress of talks aimed at reuniting the island appears to have been a key element in this latest poll, the BBC's Tabitha Morgan reports from Cyprus.

When Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Talat began talks with the Greek Cypriot leader, President Dimitris Christofias, over a year ago, he predicted a deal within months.

As part of the package, the breakaway Turkish Cypriot republic - which is only recognised by Turkey - would have gained automatic membership of the EU.

None of this has happened.

Two-state solution

The leader of the nationalist UBP party, Dervis Eroglu, has said he will be pressing for international recognition for the breakaway state.

The UBP wants the island to remain divided and has its sights on a two-state model.

Mr Eroglu has said that he would be appointing his own representative to accompany Mr Talat to future negotiations - a complication which is likely to make the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem considerably more difficult, our correspondent says.

The last attempt at a negotiated solution to the Cypriot problem - in 2004 - collapsed when Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a UN settlement plan which was rejected by Greek Cypriot voters.

As a result, Cyprus - or the southern part ruled by Greek Cypriots - joined the European Union that year, while the north remained effectively excluded.

Just under 162,000 people were eligible to participate in Sunday's vote. The provisional election results were released by the Turkish Cypriot administration with 89% of the votes counted.

Danish PM is new Nato chief

By James Blitz and Ben Hall in Strasbourg

Nato heads of government have overcome differences that had threatened to mar their 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg and Kehl when they appointed Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, as their new secretary-general.

At the same time, Nato also appeared to meet its ambitions to provide additional security for this autumn’s presidential elections in Afghanistan with an agreement to send additional troops.

Barack Obama, US president, said his alliance partners would deploy about 5,000 troops and trainers to Afghanistan ”to advance [Washington’s] new strategy”.

US officials said some 900 troops would be temporarily deployed by the UK, 600 by Spain and that Italy and France would also provide troops.

The appointment of Mr Rasmussen as replacement for the Netherlands’ Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was a relief for Nato leaders after Turkey spent much of the summit opposing his candidacy.

Mr Rasmussen had enjoyed the support of France, Germany and the UK in his bid to fill a post that has always gone to a European.

However, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish prime minister, reiterated his opposition ahead of the summit.

Ankara’s opposition was driven by the publication of newspaper cartoons in Danish newspapers making fun of the Prophet Mohammed which triggered a furore in the Muslim world.

Turkey’s decision eventually to back Mr Rasmussen avoided what would have been a humiliation for Nato in general and for European leaders in particular.

Many diplomats are beginning to question Nato’s viability as an institution because of the growing weight the US plays in the alliance’s Afghan mission, and the failure of European states to deploy more troops permanently.

Failure to agree a secretary-general at this summit would have raised more questions about whether Nato governments are sufficiently united to meet the heavy challenges the organisation faces.

Saturday’s summit concluded amid high security in Strasbourg where anti-Nato protesters fought police and set buildings alight in the city.

Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, praised the decision to send more troops saying that this means that ”burden-sharing over these next few critical months is a reality.”

North Korea missile launch condemned

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Edward Luce in Prague, Christian Oliver in Seoul, Jonathan Soble in Tokyo, and Harvey Morris at the United Nations

Global leaders condemned North Korea on Sunday for firing a long-range missile over Japan just hours before Barack Obama, US president, gave a major address in Europe calling for a “world free of nuclear weapons”.

“With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint and further isolated itself from the community of nations,” said Mr Obama.

North Korea launched a rocket at 11.30am local time (2.30am GMT) on Sunday that it claimed sent a satellite into space. The state-run news agency later said the satellite was transmitting revolutionary songs. But the Pentagon rejected the claims, saying North Korea had failed to send a satellite into orbit, and that the rocket and its payload fell into the Pacific Ocean.

Taro Aso, Japanese prime minister, called the launch “provocative”, while South Korea said the “reckless” act posed a “serious threat to peace on the Korean peninsula”. The European Union condemned the launch, while the Chinese called for countries to show “calm and restraint”.

The United Nations Security Council failed in a three-hour emergency session on Sunday to come up with a joint response to the North Korean launch, but planned to reconvene this week. The stalemate reflected Chinese resistance to imposing new sanctions on Pyongyang.

Mexico’s Claude Heller, council president, said consultations would continue with an aim to adopt a strong statement by April 15. Japan and western states in the council had hoped to secure at least a unanimous statement condemning the North Korean action.

Yukio Takasu, Japan’s UN envoy, pressed for a new resolution that would reinforce UN measures adopted against North Korea in 2006, under Security Council resolution 1718, five days after it conducted a nuclear test.

However, there was some disagreement in the council on whether the launch represented a violation of 1718, which includes a demand that Pyongyang halt ballistic missile activity. Yesui Zhang of China said all countries concerned should show restraint and refrain from actions that might lead to increased tension.

North Korea has insisted that putting a satellite into orbit is the communist state’s legitimate right under the UN Outer Space Treaty. But the US and its Asian allies have argued that any launch of a long-range rocket was a smokescreen for testing long-range missile technology.

The launch coincided with Mr Obama’s speech in Prague, which included what analysts called the most sweeping set of arms control proposals by a US president in decades.

Mr Obama, who arrived in Turkey on Sunday night for the final leg of his eight-day tour, said he would work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and move “immediately and aggressively” to persuade the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The US president, who has agreed with Dimitri Medvedev, his Russian counterpart, to aim for a new nuclear bilateral treaty with Russia by the end of the year, pledged to work towards a worldwide treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons material.

Tightening existing sanctions would involve UN member states taking more active measures to prevent the shipment of weapons and nuclear and missile technology to North Korea. The 2006 resolution also included a travel ban on named individuals and barred the sale of luxury goods to North Korea, a measure aimed at the country’s leadership.

But imposing further sanctions against North Korea also raises serious humanitarian concerns. The nation cannot meet its food needs and as many as a million people died of starvation there in the 1990s. The US recently halted food aid shipments to North Korea after Pyongyang reneged on the terms of an agreement that would have seen the state receive 500,000 metric tonnes.

Although the dispute is likely to loom large on the international stage, political analysts have also said the launch is an important domestic propaganda tool for Mr Kim. Intelligence agencies think he is recovering from a stroke and minor heart surgery and is looking for ways to shore up his authority against internal challengers.

A successful launch would also have helped North Korea raise much needed hard currency because Iran and Syria are traditional markets for its ballistics. The only other test of a Taepodong-2 weapon, in 2006, was a failure and the fuselage disintegrated seconds after take-off.

The test also comes as the US continues to press for the release of two American journalists who were captured by the North Korean authorities last month after they crossed the border from China into North Korea without permission. North Korea has said the two women will be tried for committing ”hostile acts”, in what would be the first trial of US citizens inside the hermit state.

Power Up

Rana Foroohar

What's called a 'global' recession is in fact shrinking economies mainly in the West, not the East.


As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao informed the world recently, he's a "little bit worried." Not about China, mind you, but about the United States. "We have loaned huge amounts of money to the U.S., so of course we have to be concerned," said Wen earlier this month, warning America to "honor its word" and "ensure the safety of Chinese assets." Translation: Those guys on Wall Street really screwed up. We think the dollar might tank and erase the value of our $2 trillion in T-bills. Get your act together.

It's a stunning turnabout from even a year ago, when such warnings were almost always issued by rich nations, like the U.S., to poorer ones. But a lot has changed in recent years and recent days. Emerging giants like China are stronger, more economically competent and vastly richer. Their confidence has only increased amid a calamity that is widely described as the worst "global" recession in 70 years, but is in fact not truly global. It is shrinking the richest economies, but only slowing the emerging giants. This year GDP is expected to contract by 3 percent in the U.S. and Europe, and by close to 6 percent in Japan, while continuing to expand in China and India by 7 and 5 percent, respectively.

That growth gap is destined to reshape the economic future of the world. Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill now predicts that the major emerging markets—Brazil, Russia, India and China, a.k.a. the BRICs—could overtake the combined GDP of the G7 nations by 2027, nearly a decade sooner than the forecast in a landmark study a few years back. The ascent of the formerly poor giants is accelerating, and their confidence is evident not only in the utterances of Wen Jiabao. Manmohan Singh of India has blamed the "massive failure" on authorities in "developed societies," but his peers all name America by name. Vladimir Putin of Russia scorns "the irresponsibility of the system that claims leadership." Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, in an interview with NEWSWEEK (following story), says the U.S. bears the brunt of responsibility for the crisis, and for fixing it at the upcoming G20 summit in London.

Power is not only shifting toward the BRICs, but among them as well. For all their outspokenness, Brazil and Russia have been hit much harder by the crisis than India and China. Dependent on sales of commodities that are shrinking rapidly in price, Russia's economy has fallen off a cliff, and could shrink 3 percent this year. Brazil will likely stagnate. Their recoveries could be slow and painful, too. Goldman Sachs projections for the period from 2011 to 2050 show Russia growing at just 2.8 percent, Brazil at 4.3 percent, China at 5.2 and India at 6.3. If those figures turn out to be correct, three of the top four economies in the world—China, the U.S., India and Japan, in that order—would be Asian within the next two decades. The Asian Century is almost here.

The markets seem to know it. While the S&P 500, down about 45 percent last year, has plummeted another 15 percent since the start of 2009, the Shanghai Composite Index is up by 20 percent, continuing a rally that began in November.

The grim consumer outlook, unemployment paranoia and general siege mentality that's taken hold in the West is also largely absent in Asia. In China and India, sales of cars, white goods and many other types of consumer products are still rising, in large part because of the strong and swift stimulus measures taken by these nations, which have clearly learned a lot about macroeconomic policymaking since the 1990s. Capital goods and machinery are showing double-digit growth in India, and cement sales in China have suddenly risen, now that it's getting warm enough to build. Russia once again is the outlier: consumer spending there is still down sharply.

Americans are ceding the role of world's most resilient shoppers to the Chinese and Indians. Chinese bank lending this past December was up 1,000 percent over the same period last year, as the government lowered interest rates, reigniting the real-estate market. "That's opening up a whole new, broader base of local people in China who can now afford apartments—and believe me, the demand is there," says Michael Klibaner, head of China research for the real-estate marketresearch firm Jones Lang LaSalle.

The big question for China has been whether it can forge an economy that depends not on exports to the West, but on consumption. Klibaner says it's happening, because the strongest real-estate growth now is not in big cities that cater to exporters but in smaller ones geared toward the domestic market. That follows the trend in Brazil, where the middle class is the largest segment of the population, and also in India. "Consumer spending is 60 percent of GDP in India," says Global Insight chief economist Nariman Behravesh. "That's a key reason why the economy hasn't been hit harder in this downturn."

None of this means that BRIC consumers will save a world in financial crisis. Their purchasing power is still far too weak compared with rich nations like the U.S. and Japan. Yet as their economies grow, so will the power of their wallets. Sooner rather than later, consumers in the BRIC nations will dictate the R&D investments of major corporations, the travel routes of airlines and the marketing campaigns of multinationals.

The BRICs are better positioned to recover than their richer peers. Broadly speaking, better control of inflation, lower deficits, increasing productivity, richer social programs and greater political stability have given the emerging giants greater room for error at a time when the macro-economic environment in rich countries has been deteriorating. Even Brazil and hard-hit Russia have used raw-materials windfalls (oil and gas for Russia, soybeans and iron ore for Brazil) to build a buffer for the downturn—Russia has spent more than $300 billion defending the ruble, and still has that much in reserve. Brazil's $208 billion reserve remains almost untouched.

What's more, the BRICs have learned from our follies. Strong regulatory oversight allowed the Indian and Chinese financial sectors to emerge relatively unscathed from the credit crisis. Through the first half of 2008 (the most recent available data), Chinese banks were acquiring foreign rivals and increasing their share of global financial markets. If that continues, a Deutsche Bank report released last week predicts, China will become one of the dominant financial markets in the world by 2018, alongside the U.S. and the EU, with a 13 percent share in global bond markets, 40 percent of equity markets and 18 percent of global banking.

Sooner than that, the Chinese will likely see an uptick in exports. Purchasing-order surveys in China have been up for three months now, notes CLSA economist Andy Rothman, as factory owners in places like the Yangtze River Delta struggle to fill rush jobs for Western clothing chains that panicked and reduced orders too much. Rothman calls it the "Wal-Mart effect", and expects the interest of increasingly thrifty Western consumers in all things cheap to help Chinese exporters rebound. Many others say the "cheap is cool" phenomenon will ultimately buoy all kinds of emerging-market products and services, from Mexican cement makers to Indian telecom providers, that still tend to offer the best prices. When consumers around the world do start buying again, it seems they'll be doing it in the BRIC countries.

US and Iran 'Like Two Boxers Circling around a Ring'

This week has seen a number of comments from leaders in the US and Iran that signal a potential thawing in relations. German commentators welcome the change in tone but worry that talk of negotiations might merely be wishful thinking.

A series of diplomatic comments emanating from leaders in both Washington and Tehran this week indicate that a slow thawing of relations may have already have begun between the two countries.

The exchange began with United States President Barack Obama's inauguration speechlast month, when he told Muslim countries that America "will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." This sentiment was echoed in a press conference on Monday, when Obama said that his administration was reviewing Iran policy and "looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue" and acknowledged that "there's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years."

On Tuesday, in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded with his own gentler words. "Our nation is ready to hold talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere," Ahmadinejad said in front of tens of thousands of spectators while delivering a speech marking the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

This exchange was followed by more statements on Wednesday. Hassan Qashqavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, sounded a harsher tone when he said that talks would only come if the US stopped making "baseless" accusations against Iran about seeking nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, according to the Associated Press. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottak struck a softer tone when he told Reuters that changes in US policies and stances would be greeted as "happy news" in Tehran.

Also on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters she was hopeful that the US and Iran would be able to "work out a way of talking." At a news conference with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country currently holds the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union, Clinton added that Washington might "reconsider where we stand" on its deployment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe if it feels Iran is willing to abandoned its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Clinton added, however, that "we are a long, long way from seeing any evidence of a behavioral change." Under the missile defense program planned by former US President George W. Bush, the Czech Republic would have been the site of a major radar installation used in the shield.

German commentators, who are generally opposed to the US missile plan, welcome these statements but also express concern. Commentators fear there is too much uncertainty in the region, with the final outcome of Israeli election still uncertain and presidential elections in Iran slated for June 12. The outcome of both elections could deeply influence -- positively or negatively -- any efforts aimed at rapprochement.

Dutch MP banned from entering UK

A Dutch MP who described the Koran as a "fascist book" has been banned from entering the UK amid fears his presence would endanger public security.

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders was invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.

But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.

Mr Wilders said the move was "cowardly" but one peer said it was "welcome".

'Offensive'

Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year.

Its opening scenes show a copy of the Koran followed by footage of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.


The Dutch prime minister has said the film served "no purpose other than to offend".

Mr Wilders was asked to show the film at the House of Lords by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson.

However, he received a letter from the British Embassy in the Netherlands telling him he would not be allowed into the UK.

The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.

"The government opposes extremism in all forms," it said in a statement, adding that it had tightened up rules on excluding those engaging in "unacceptable behaviour" in October.

"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred, and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country."

Mr Wilders described the decision as "cowardly" and said he still intends to travel to the UK on Thursday to take part in the event.

'Very saddened'

He told the BBC: "It's incredible that an elected politician who was invited by one of your parliamentarians to a discussion with people who are against me, or in favour of me [was banned from the UK]."

Mr Wilders added: "I was surprised and very saddened that the freedom of speech that was a very strong point of UK society has been harassed. I thought Great Britain had the mother of all parliaments."


The Dutch government is reported to be trying to overturn the ban.

In the past, Mr Wilders has called for the Koran to be banned and compared it to Mein Kampf.

Earlier this year, a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to put Mr Wilders on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination by making anti-Islamic statements.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who expressed his concerns to the Parliamentary authorities about Mr Wilders' visit, said he welcomed the decision to ban the MP.

"It would be unwise to have him in the UK because this man's presence would cause hatred," he said.

"He has a case against him in the Amsterdam court for inciting hatred."

'Attacked obviously'

Lord Ahmed, who said other Muslim peers shared his concerns, stressed that Mr Wilders' views would certainly present a threat to public order.

"When Muslims are attacked obviously you will see people react to that."

But Lord Pearson said the decision to bar him was "weak and unacceptable in the extreme".

"The Home Office is guilty of appeasement on this, clearly."

The peer said the screening would still go ahead on Thursday whether Mr Wilders was present or not.

He said the parliamentary authorities were happy for the event to take place but had ordered extra security for it.

"The film does not threaten anyone," he said, adding that it simply showed how violent extremists justified their actions.

He said the screening would be followed by a debate on issues relating to the Koran, extremism and freedom of speech.

From Russia, kind words and a punch in the nose

By Ellen Barry

Friday, February 6, 2009
MOSCOW: Talk about mixed messages. Russian leaders could not say enough good things about President Barack Obama this week. His statements on Afghanistan were "encouraging," his arms control proposals were "a fresh signal," and plans for talks with Iran were "encouraging signals."

But the compliments came with the geopolitical equivalent of a punch in the nose.

On Tuesday, visiting Moscow to accept $2.15 billion in aid, the president of Kyrgyzstan announced a decision to shut down the U.S. air base of Manas, creating a formidable obstacle to Obama's single biggest foreign policy aim, pursuing the war in Afghanistan.

Maybe this should not have come as a surprise. Beginning with the bristling speech that President Dmitri Medvedev gave hours after Obama was elected, the signals from Moscow to the new U.S. administration have veered from hostile to conciliatory and back again. Moscow is clearly exploring the idea of cooperation. But it is also demanding, in arm-twisting fashion, that Obama make Russian interests a priority.

"It's not clear to me who's calling the shots or what exactly the message is," said Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is now president of the Brookings Institution. "It's an odd way to set the table for a serious, forward-looking dialogue. The Russians claim to want a discussion."

Afghanistan has been seen as an important area for cooperation between the two countries, since Russia is deeply worried about the spread of Islamic extremism in the region. That notion was thrown into doubt Tuesday when, at a news conference in Moscow, the Kyrgyz president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, announced plans to shut down the base.

Kyrgyz and Russian officials have said the move had nothing to do with the pledge of Russian aid, but Moscow has long sought to push the United States out of the bases it has leased in Central Asia. Russian comments since then have suggested that if Obama hopes to move forward with his plans to deploy as many as 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he will have to secure Moscow's support. That means addressing Russian complaints, including plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic and expanding NATO.

"In the Russian mind, there is a window of opportunity to bargain, and if we are sitting down to bargain, we better have good cards on our side of the table," said Oksana Antonenko, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Strategic Studies in London.

"What they see in the best case scenario is a deal. A bargain. It's not a partnership."

The move was startling because it came amid a string of signals that Moscow was actually willing to engage Obama.

U.S. policymakers were encouraged by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which muted his typically caustic anti-U.S. tone. Medvedev organized a candid, hourlong meeting with the editor of Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper critical of the Kremlin which has lost a series of employees to contract killings, and he promised to rewrite an anti-treason law that had infuriated human rights activists.

In the last two weeks, Moscow announced that it was ready to open a NATO supply route to Afghanistan through Russia. And though official sources would not confirm it, an anonymous Defense Ministry official told the Interfax news service that Moscow had dropped a plan to station a battery of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad.

Then came the announcement Tuesday about the Manas air base.

"This really did come out of the blue for me," said Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia-Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It is a particularly Russian tactic — it's sort of brutal, and rude, and makes it harder to achieve what you think their goal is."

It came as a reminder that Russians do not share Europeans' giddiness over Obama. Relations between Russia and the United States last year reached their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union, and dialogue between the two governments had basically halted. In that sense, Obama will have to deal with "the tail end of the Bush legacy," including bitter memories of the war in Georgia last summer, said Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for USA and Canada Studies in Moscow.

"Can you imagine, after the Georgia war, that Russia would lobby Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the United States?" Rogov said, adding that the decision "was not something Russia did, it was something against which Russia didn't object."

Moreover, Russian leaders are getting impatient to see concrete plans from Washington. Obama seems willing to slow the timeline on missile defense and NATO expansion, but not to publicly shelve the projects. Russian leaders, eager to renegotiate the relationship, want to make sure they have Obama's attention.

"The real ball game has not started," Rogov said. "There will be tough bargaining on many issues. It's a legacy of the semi-Cold War."

It may be a mistake to look for a grand plan in statements coming out of Moscow, where major players still disagree about the benefits of a friendlier relationship and may be addressing themselves to domestic audiences.

A single, raw issue — U.S. influence in post-Soviet space — underlies the raft of policy disputes between the two capitals, said Angela Stent, who directs Russian studies at Georgetown University. Resolving it, she said, "may be impossible to do, but it has to be tried."

"How much does Russia really want the relationship to change?" she said. "That's still an open question."

An Answer to the Russian Challenge

By Joschka Fischer - 14 Jan 09

For 19 years, the West has been putting off answering a critical strategic question: What role should post-Soviet Russia actually play globally and in the European order? Should it be treated as a difficult partner or a strategic adversary?

Even when this choice became critically acute during the crisis of Russia's short war against Georgia in August, the West didn't provide a conclusive answer to this question. If you follow most East Europeans, Britain and the administration of President George W. Bush, the answer is "strategic adversary." But most West Europeans prefer "difficult partner." These seemingly mutually exclusive alternatives have one thing in common: Neither of them has been thought through to the end.

If you see Moscow -- with its restoration of power politics under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to the detriment of the rule of law in domestic and foreign policy -- as a strategic adversary, then the West should fundamentally change its agenda.

While Russia is no longer the superpower it was in the Soviet era, militarily it is still a great power -- at least in Europe and Asia. To address the numerous regional conflicts (Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia and North Korea) and global challenges (climate protection, disarmament, arms control, nuclear anti-proliferation, energy security) that have high priority on the Western agenda, cooperation with Moscow is necessary.

A strategic confrontation with Moscow would undermine this agenda -- or at least complicate its implementation significantly. So the question is simply whether the threat emanating from Russia is so grave that this kind of strategic reorientation on the part of the West is required? I believe it is not.

Putin's claim to great-power status and his great-power policies are structurally very vulnerable. This is especially true at times when the price of oil has fallen below $40 per barrel. And he knows that.

Because of its geopolitical position and its potential, however, Russia will remain a permanent strategic factor in Europe and Asia that cannot be ignored. To integrate the country into a strategic partnership is therefore in the West's interest. But this would require a Western policy based on long-term thinking and a self-confident and strong power position, because the Kremlin will perceive any sign of division and weakness as encouragement to return to power politics.

A few months ago, the Russian government came up with a proposal to negotiate a new European order within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Kremlin considers the agreements from the 1990s unjust, based as they were on its weakness at the time, and it wants to revise them. Moscow's main strategic objective is the weakening or even rollback of NATO on the grounds that it is essentially an anti-Russian military alliance and the re-establishment of its East European and Central Asian zones of influence.

But Putin is making a big mistake here, because all these aims are unacceptable for the West, and the Kremlin still doesn't seem to understand that the best and most effective guarantee of NATO's existence was, is and will continue to be an aggressive Russian foreign policy.

In the former mother country of Marxism-Leninism, the leaders still don't seem to understand dialectics. After all, if the Kremlin really wanted to achieve a change in the country's post-Soviet status quo, it should, first and foremost, pursue a policy vis-a-vis its neighbors that reduces rather than increases fears.

But this applies similarly, if in reverse, to the West. On the one hand, the principles of a new Europe as defined by the OSCE after 1989 and 1990 don't allow decisions about alliances to be subject to the veto of a large neighbor. The same is true for free and secret elections and the inviolability of borders.

On the other hand, installing elements of a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the prospect of NATO accession for Georgia and Ukraine assume confrontation where this was not at all necessary.

The West should not reject Moscow's wish for new negotiations on a European security system. Instead, it should be viewed as an opportunity finally to answer the key question of its place within Europe.

NATO must play the central role here, because it is indispensable for the vast majority of Europeans and for America. The possible trade-off could be that the existing principles and institutions of the post-Soviet European order, including NATO, remain unchanged and are accepted and implemented by Russia, which would get a significantly enhanced role within NATO, including the perspective of full membership. The peripheral nature of the NATO-Russia Council was clearly not enough and did not work.

But why not think about transforming NATO into a real European security system, including Russia? The rules of the game would be changed and a whole variety of strategic goals could be achieved -- European security, neighborhood conflicts, energy security, arms reduction and anti-proliferation. Yes, such a bold step would transform NATO. But it would transform Russia even more.

If the West approaches these discussions with Russia without illusions, with a clear understanding of its own strategic interests and with new ideas for partnership and cooperation, the worst to be feared is failure.

Of course, this approach presupposes two things that don't exist at the moment: a common trans-Atlantic approach to dealing with Russia and a European Union that acts in much greater unison and is therefore stronger. Nonetheless, the challenge posed by Russia does not allow any further procrastination. There is simply too much at stake.

Optimism over latest Cyprus talks

Mediators in the effort to reunite Cyprus have expressed optimism that a deal may be reached.

"There is a real possibility of reaching a settlement here," said Alexander Downer, the UN's special envoy for Cyprus.

He was speaking as Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat held their latest meeting in Nicosia.

They were discussing how power might be shared in a reunited nation.

Cyprus has been split since a Turkish invasion in 1974, that followed a brief Greek-inspired coup in Nicosia.

The north now runs its own affairs in a de facto state only recognised by Turkey.

The south is the officially recognised government, and a full member of the EU.

' Incredibly difficult'

The leaders of the two sides opened a new peace process in September 2008 and have been meeting regularly.

They did not give any details of the results of their talks on Friday, but Mr Christofias said: "There are issues where we have achieved progress, there are issues that still remain open and those where there is disagreement."
The next topic under discussion will be that of property rights. Many Cypriots still claim rights over land they were forced to abandon in 1974.

Mr Downer expressed optimism that the process was on the road to success, though he would not say how long it might take.

"It wouldn't be helpful to negotiations to impose a timeline - they need to keep making progress gradually but surely," he said.

"It is an incredibly difficult task, nobody should underestimate how hard it is after so many years and such deep conflict - I remain cautiously optimistic," he said.

Writing the Rules for a New World

Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
If you want to know what the post-American world will look like, just reread the coverage of the November G20 summit in Washington, D.C. First, there was the event itself. Every prior financial crisis had been handled by the IMF, the World Bank or the G7 (and, later, the G8). But this time, the big boys realized they couldn't tackle the problems alone and had to bring in world's top emerging markets too. For an effective response in a highly connected global economy, all the world's major players needed to participate. To supply cash, countries like China and Saudi Arabia were crucial. As for legitimacy, the old Western clubs were archaic, relics of a bygone world and could no longer provide it on their own.

Of course, not everything has changed. The meeting was still held in Washington, and President George W. Bush got to play the major role in setting the agenda. America has vital relations with key countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, as well as good ties to old allies like Britain, France and Germany. And it seemed entirely possible that this larger and more representative group of nations could actually do some of the policy coordination needed to begin to solve the crisis. So it's a new world, but not necessarily one from which America has been ousted, nor one where common actions are impossible.

Historians will probably look back on the meltdown and see it as one largely caused by success. I realize it seems odd to say that of events characterized by panic, a credit crunch, slowing growth and falling stock markets. But consider the conditions that created this state of affairs. Over the past two decades, the world had enjoyed political stability, low inflation and a massive expansion of the global economy by almost 3 billion people. Countries around the planet grew at unheard-of levels—124 of them expanded at 4 percent or more in 2006 and 2007. Wars, civil conflicts and terrorism caused less political turmoil than they had in decades—or, by some measures, in centuries.

All this produced a new set of problems. As some countries grew in strength and resources they became more assertive and nationalistic. The emergence of Iran, Venezuela and a revived Russia is in good measure a product of the price of petroleum. So is Islamic jihad. Fueled by vast amounts of money, Wahhabi ideas found their way into almost all Muslim countries, shifting the tone of Islam everywhere and giving resources to radicalized young men.

In the world of economics, prosperity and low inflation unleashed two massive forces. The first was cheap credit, and the second, vast new pools of capital. Surplus savings piled up in the emerging economies of Asia (and then in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East) on a scale never before seen in history. Add to these two new forces two old ones—greed and stupidity—and you begin to understand how it all came apart.

At one level, the problem is that the United States and some other Western economies consumed too much—much more than they produced—and made up the difference by borrowing. But if America overspent, Asia oversaved. All those savings—some $10 trillion—had to go somewhere, and for two decades most of it was funneled back into the United States, which was seen, with some justification, as the safest and best place to invest. This led to easy credit and multiple bubbles in the United States—in technology stocks, bonds, real estate.

As bad as it looks, the current financial crisis will end. I don't know when or how, but the combination of government interventions will eventually work. Why do I say this? Because governments are more powerful than markets. They can close markets down, nationalize firms and write new rules. And Washington has one other, unique power: it can print money.

Government intervention has stabilized capitalism before. No modern society could accept the downswings that were routine in the 19th century, an era of much less intervention. The average length of a recession between 1854 and 1919 was 22 months. In the past two decades, by contrast, recessions have averaged eight months. Between 1854 and 1999, the U.S. economy went into a contraction every 49 months. In the past two decades, it has been 100 months between contractions. Many factors have contributed to these changes, but the chief explanation has been Washington's monetary and fiscal policies. Of course, the financial industry—the center of the current crisis—is unusual if not unique, since it is the lifeblood of the economy. As a result, it should be monitored especially carefully. In almost all the financial crises of the past 30 years (and there have been dozens of them) the government has had to intervene to restore trust and confidence. And it's succeeded.

Does this round of intervention mark a return to socialism, or even the old mixed economy? Well, 35 years ago governments in most countries controlled the value of their national currencies. They owned steel companies, car manufacturers, the telephone company and banks. They set the price of airline tickets, phone calls, stock commissions and cement. Tariffs in the industrialized world were several times higher than they are today. Does anyone really think we're returning to this era? Does anyone believe that governments would be any better at owning and running economies than they were in the past? There will be a return of regulation. But regulation is not socialism.

Capitalism is now a global phenomenon. It is being powered by the actions of companies and governments and individuals all over the world. And in the search for growth and higher standards of living, countries will continue to use free markets and free trade to power their rise. Governments have not liberalized their markets because Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson or his predecessor Robert Rubin ordered them to; they did so because they could see the benefits of moving in that direction (and the costs of not moving). This process will continue to be halting and episodic, depending on political pressures. But I suspect that over the next 20 years, most countries will try to free up their markets (in a controlled fashion) to get more growth rather than nationalize bits of their economies. Certainly the history of past economic crises shows that in their wake countries have conducted more-aggressive economic reforms to bring greater credibility to their systems, attract new capital and jump-start growth.

As all this suggests, the current debate about government and markets is sterile. Every serious thinker understands we need both. The question is how to balance the two to achieve growth, innovation, stability and social equity. The crucial need is not for big government or small government but smart government. How can we make government work for the vast majority of people, for future generations, for the broad welfare of society?

The real problem we face today is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of globalization. The new world coming into being is not going to go away. We will not return to a system dominated by a handful of countries around the North Atlantic. The factors powering the rise of the global economy, and thus the rise of the rest, are broad structural forces that have been at work for decades. They are not ephemeral and will not vanish in the face of one financial crisis or recession. They will endure, and in the process shift power away from established centers in the West.

But will this lead to a more stable world?

There is, of course, the age-old worry: that in times of transition, the world will get messy. Ever since Thucydides observed that the shift in power from Sparta to Athens was the fundamental cause of the Peloponnesian War, scholars have watched such moments with apprehension. But this time, if properly managed, the rise of the rest needs to be destabilizing. America is not sinking fast, about to be replaced by a single country. The Chinese economy remains one fifth the size of America's, and its military is even smaller. Most major powers share some basic interests and ideals with the United States. The real danger remains that Washington will overplay its hand, leading other countries to seek to balance it. The management of U.S. political and military power remains the single most important task for global stability. The United States must provide rules, institutions and services that help solve major global problems.

But common action—to create public goods—has become much more difficult today. Economic and social activity is global, but political power is local. Economic, social and political problems often spill over borders, yet the solutions tend to lie with national governments that jealously guard their sovereignty. Unless we solve this basic problem, we should expect more crises of various kinds. And we should expect responses that are ad hoc and ineffective. Eventually such clumsy responses may make countries approach things narrowly and nationalistically, creating more global instability and less peace and prosperity.

To illustrate this point, consider almost any serious problem; chances are it implicates more than one country. Terrorism, financial contagion, infectious diseases, energy, security—all these challenges require coordinated responses, and in some cases institutions that can implement them. Take a simple example like infectious disease. An outbreak today is almost guaranteed to quickly spread far and wide. That means we all have an incentive to determine the nature of the pathogen as quickly as possible, isolate the victims and work toward a cure. Ideally, the World Health Organization would be able to step in, require samples of the virus to be sent to it, make a definitive determination and set protocols to be followed. Unfortunately, it is underfunded, undermanned and lacks the authority to make rules that everyone must follow.

This mismatch between problem and solution has been remarked on by me and others for a while now. Somehow it has yet to move up the international agenda. Yet that may finally be changing.

Sometimes a crisis provides an opportunity. This past fall, several Western governments initially responded to the financial meltdown by trying to handle it on their own. They seemed to forget about globalization—and nothing is more globalized than capital. Money flows around the world with no barriers, demanding international policy coordination. Belatedly recognizing this, leaders held the G20 meeting in Washington, a good first step. But to seriously address the crisis, we must move beyond this one event to a systemic fix. The IMF, for example, needs to be revamped and funded far more generously to handle such panics in the future.

It has become conventional wisdom, even a sport of sorts, to blame the United States for a lack of leadership on these issues. There is some truth to this, and I certainly hope that President Obama will be far more engaged than his predecessor in tackling this agenda. But the problem is not limited to Washington. The problem also lies with Paris and Moscow and Beijing and New Delhi. European governments have been reluctant to cede power to the IMF and other forums. The United Nations is becoming increasingly irrelevant and antiquated, unable to adapt its structure to accommodate rising powers. Many emerging-market countries guard their sovereignty as jealously as does the United States, often even more so. Yet what alternative is there?

The point is that unless we find ways to expand and enhance the rules and institutions of global cooperation, the world will experience more and more crises and the government responses will be hasty and ad hoc, too little, too late. If, on the other hand, we come together and work together on the common problems of humanity, imagine the extraordinary opportunities it could create for everyone. Imagine if we created new rules of the road that allowed this extraordinary process of globalization and growth to persist and spread to every section of society, raising standards of living and health for the poorest of the poor, allowing more and more people to develop their potential.

Citizens and governments the world over have worked wonders during the past few decades. Now it's time for their governments to match this ingenuity with new forms of cooperation. The great project of the 21st century should be a new architecture—one that helps to ensure growth and peace for the world.

MAKING SENSE OF THE MUMBAI ATTACKS

By SPIEGEL Staff
The murderous attack on the city of Mumbai by Islamists shocked the world. It was coolly planned and coldly executed, and the trail supposedly points across the border to Pakistan, India's archenemy. Are the two nuclear powers on the verge of a new conflict?

It was a bizarre incident. Perhaps security officials should have seen what happened in March 2007 in the waters off Mumbai, a city of 18 million people, as a warning. That was when the crew of an Indian coast guard vessel noticed a fishing cutter coming from the north.

When the officers stopped the boat, they found, in addition to the crew, eight young Pakistani men who had no business being in Indian territorial waters. The men were so intent on being allowed to continue to Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay, that they offered the Indian officials a bribe.

The Indians took the money and allowed the eight Pakistanis to continue, but they were not truly corrupt. Instead, they quickly placed a small homing device on board the fishing boat and notified Indian intelligence.

A short time later, the Pakistanis were apprehended and questioned. The intelligence agents soon realized that they were dealing with Islamists from the Pakistani organization Lashkar-e Taiba. But they never learned what the men were doing in India.

Today, more than one-and-a-half years later, Indian intelligence agents are connecting the dots between that incident and last week's attacks in Mumbai. They believe that the Islamists may have been on a test run to figure out the best way to bring a certain number of men from Pakistan to Mumbai by sea.

That trip was probably a dress rehearsal for the attack that began last Wednesday evening. It ended in more than 170 dead and almost 300 wounded, after Mumbai was attacked by at least 10 Islamists. They arrived in inflatable boats, wore athletic shoes, trendy cargo trousers and backpacks -- young men who looked like backpacking students.

With the ongoing fire from their Kalashnikovs, and with hand grenades and explosives, the attackers set off a panic in India's largest city and the rest of the country. To the horror of the rest of the world, they targeted Americans, Brits and Israelis. Some holed up in the enormous Taj Mahal Hotel in the eastern part of the city, others went on a murdering spree in the five-star Hotel Oberoi-Trident, a few hundred meters away in western Mumbai, while a third group killed commuters at a train station farther north. The streets between these sites were transformed into a triangle of terror.

This was no ordinary, al-Qaida-style bombing. It was a military commando action, precisely planned and carried out in cold blood, a nightmare that lasted more than 45 hours, until the police and military finally managed to end the massacre.

An Outpost of the West in the East

Mumbai represents the side of India it wants the world to see: modern, open, capitalist, global and affluent, the financial capital of a country seeking international recognition. For this reason, no other city in India has attracted as much of the destructive fury of Islamists as this halo on the Arabian Sea.

Mumbai is like an outpost of the West in the East, a city of stock markets and the Bollywood film industry, the financial center and dream factory for a country of one billion people, India's New York and Los Angeles rolled into one. For those who want no part of the West's focus on money, globalization and modernity, Mumbai is a Western den of iniquity. For those who yearn to be a part of it, Mumbai is a melting pot.

The city is a magnet for thousands arriving from rural areas, who end up in teeming slums, hoping to work their way up to the sunny side one day. Mumbai, with its 18 million people, could soon be the world's second-largest city after Tokyo. There is unbelievable wealth and devastating poverty, and even without religion, Mumbai offers plenty of material for conflict fueled by hate.

The Islamist terrorists apparently hoped to strike two enemies at the same time. They wanted to strike a blow at modern India, to avenge their oppressed fellow Muslims and wrest part of the divided region of Kashmir from Indian control. But it was also an attack on the West, as evidenced by the terrorists' singling out of British and American citizens, by their targeting of the famous luxury hotels where foreigners stay and by their attack on a Jewish center. Up to 20 of the dead are foreigners, three of them apparently from Germany. The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation has sent four officers to Mumbai.

In committing the murders, the terrorists added a global charge to a regional conflict. There are three powder kegs lined up next to each other in this region: ethnically diverse India, embattled Afghanistan and unstable Pakistan. These three countries contain enough explosive material to shake the entire world, especially because India and Pakistan, archenemies, have nuclear warheads and this attack could propel them toward new hostilities.

This melting together of conflicts is typical al-Qaida strategy from the Osama bin Laden school. It breaks down international borders. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine to Indonesia, wherever the supposed true believers are battling the supposed infidels, everything flows together into one great conflict, the "clash of civilizations" that US political scientist Samuel Huntington foresaw at the end of the Cold War. According to Huntington, the main battle lines would soon no longer be drawn between the two major blocs and ideologies, but between cultures and religions, especially between the Western and the Islamic worlds.

'Gateway to India'

The most recent battle in this war began when the Islamists' black-and-yellow inflatable boats set out -- presumably from a mother ship out at sea, as Indian investigators believe. They also speculate that some of the terrorists arrived by land a few days earlier, but that the men on the ship brought the weapons.

On Thursday, an Indian coast guard helicopter discovered the Kuber, a fishing trawler, unmanned and adrift in the Indian Ocean, with the body of a man believed to be the captain on board, his hands tied and his throat slit. The terrorists may have hijacked the boat. Investigators are currently analyzing the data on the ship's navigation system and satellite telephone. It could reveal where exactly the terrorists came from.

Skyscrapers point the way to downtown Mumbai, where the famous "Gateway to India" monument stands. It would also serve as the terrorists' gateway to Mumbai. The city is on an island, and its downtown area is surrounded by water on three sides -- the ideal setting for attackers arriving by sea.
Once on land, the Islamists stole several cars and a police van. They separated into at least five groups and set off on their mission. Possibly the first shots -- officials have not yet been able to reconstruct the course of events leading up to Saturday morning -- fell at about 9:30 p.m. at the Chhatrapati Shivaji train station.

In the Victorian terminal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, at least two terrorists pulled automatic weapons out of their bags and began shooting randomly and tossing hand grenades at commuters. "The men seemed calm and focused. They were not in a hurry at all. They did not seem to be afraid of anything," says an employee at a nearby café. One of the men would fire while the other one reloaded, according to the café employee. About 40 people were killed or wounded.

'Pure Horror'

At about the same time, their collaborators began shooting wildly in the lobby of the 105-year-old Taj Mahal, a hotel popular among the international elite, including politicians, millionaires and celebrities. A palace with more than 565 rooms, hand-woven silk carpets, alabaster ceilings and crystal chandeliers, the Taj Mahal has accommodated such famous guests as Prince Charles, Jackie Onassis, David Rockefeller, Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger.

The Taj is a world-class hotel managed by an international staff, including a German deputy director. One night in a room in the hotel's main wing costs about $500 (€400), breakfast not included. The Taj is almost always filled with foreigners.

When the first shots fell, Erika Mann, a German Social Democratic politician and member of the European Parliament, was sitting in the hotel restaurant with some Indian acquaintances. She was in Mumbai to conduct negotiations on trade relations. "Odd, we thought, perhaps this is the gun salute for a wedding," she said a few days later. But what happened next, says Mann, was "pure horror."

The exact whereabouts of Ralph Burkei -- the treasurer of the Munich branch of Bavaria's conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) and vice president of TSV 1860, a Munich football club -- in those first few minutes are still unclear. Burkei, 51, a partner in C.A.M.P. TV, a media company that produces the program "Bayern Journal," was vacationing with his girlfriend at the Taj. He attempted to flee when the Islamists arrived, a move that would lead to his horrific death.

Andreas Liveras, 73, a British national with an estimated net worth of close to half a billion euros, remained relatively cool at the beginning. He earned a portion of his wealth with a frozen pastry business, but later in life he derived his income from chartering his two motorized yachts: The 90-meter (295-foot) Lauren and the 85-meter (279-foot) Alysia are available for rent beginning at €696,000 ($870,000), VAT not included.

When the shots began, Liveras took cover under a table in the restaurant. A short time later, he called the BBC to report on the fighting and bomb explosions around him. By then, complete mayhem had erupted on the streets of Mumbai. A taxi blew up under an overpass, and a few terrorists drove through the streets, shooting indiscriminately into the crowds. Some victims who had been brought to a hospital were shot at a second time by the terrorists in front of the hospital.

Five Islamists stormed a famous restaurant, the Café Leopold. According to the "Lonely Planet," the Leopold attracts tourists from around the world like moths to a flame. "All of a sudden there was shooting coming from automatic weapons, and the whole place exploded," says Diane Murphy, a British citizen. "It was extremely loud, and my husband and I were hit" -- she in the foot and he between the ribs. Within minutes, the interior walls were covered with bullet holes and people were lying in pools of blood. The terrorists also threw hand grenades in the restaurant. All that remained of one victim were his shoes.


Soon the police arrived, followed by soldiers and later special forces -- heavily armed and dressed in black uniforms. By then the shooting was coming from all sides. The terrorists were firing so wastefully at anything that moved that some officials believe that they may have set up ammunition depots days before the attacks. By that time, another group of terrorists believed to consist of seven armed men had begun their attack on the Oberoi Trident, another luxury hotel that competes with the Taj. They singled out Britons, Americans and Israelis. Snipers went into position on surrounding rooftops. One hostage wrote "Save us" on a sheet and hung it from a window. Later on, a large fire erupted at the Oberoi, and fires soon broke out at the Taj Mahal, as well.
At roughly 9:45 p.m., a group of terrorists attacked a Jewish center in the Colaba tourist district. Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife Rivka, 28, ran the center as a so-called Chabad House, sponsored by the ultra-orthodox Lubavitch Society in New York. Chabad Houses serve as shelters, synagogues and meeting places for Jews in dozens of countries around the world.

The rabbi and his wife were already asleep when the Islamists arrived. Others in the house included the devout couple's two-year-old son Mosche, a nanny and three other Jews. The nanny and one of the Jews escaped and hid in a storage room. After 12 hours in the hiding place, she heard the Holtzberg's young son crying.

The nanny ventured out and saw Mosche standing next to his parents, who were lying motionless in pools of blood. She grabbed the little boy and ran out of the building.

Later on, a special unit used a helicopter to storm the Chabad House and shot two terrorists. By then, the hostages had all been killed, most of them with their hands tied.

In the period following the attack on the Chabad House, several news agencies and newspapers in Mumbai received an e-mail in which a group calling itself the "Deccan Mujaheddin" claimed responsibility for the attacks. No one had ever heard of the group.

'You Have Wronged Us'

That night, a terrorist holed up in the Hotel Oberoi gave a telephone interview to the Indian broadcaster India TV, in which he demanded the immediate release of all Islamists imprisoned in India. "You have wronged us and forced us to suffer atrocities," he said, explaining that this was why he and his brothers were now willing to die as martyrs. The man, who called himself Sahadullah, spoke Punjabi with a Pakistani accent.

The reporter asked whether the Deccan Mujaheddin had ties to al-Qaida. No, the terrorist replied, al-Qaida had cut off ties with his group. How many weapons do you have left?, the journalist asked. We still have a few presents left over for you, the man replied, followed by the sound of shots being fired in the background.

The Deccan is a high plateau in southern India. But it was doubtful if a local, previously unknown terrorist organization could truly execute an operation of this magnitude without outside support. How much in the way of logistics does an attack of this nature require?

Not much, Indian security officials in Mumbai said on Thursday. Almost all of the targets were "soft targets," that is, places with little security and easy access for the assailants. The bombs, say Indian experts, were small and manageable, and the idea of arriving by sea, though clever, did not require the involvement of a large organization.

It was evident, said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the fighting, that the attacks were carried out by a "group based outside the country." Was it just an Indian reflex, to blame neighboring Pakistan? Or did the premier have more information than that? Singh said that he had proof to support his theory that the terrorists had come from abroad, although his government declined to say exactly what the evidence was.

A Region That Has Always Seethed with Violence

Some signs seemed to point in a completely different direction -- inward. There is plenty of anger and hate to go around among India's Muslims, just as there are plenty of men within that group who idolize al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
The decades-long good relationship between the Muslim minority and the Indian state was severely shaken in 2002, when a Hindu mob hunted down and killed about 2,000 Muslims in the western Indian state of Gujarat. Meanwhile, the international politicization of Islam has not gone unnoticed among Indian Muslims. In response to the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in 2005, radical Muslims staged angry protests in India. And not every terrorist arrested by Indian security forces has completed his training in Pakistani or Afghan camps. There are also terrorist training camps in the forests of the southwest Indian province of Kerala and in central India.

And then there was a more recent warning from inside India. On Saturday, Sept. 13, five bombs exploded in New Delhi, killing 20 people. On the same day, various newspapers received an email signed by a terrorist group known as the "Indian Mujaheddin." Many now assume that this group is behind the attack on Mumbai, and that is may be a sort of umbrella organization for the Deccan Mujaheddin.
In November 2007, the Indian Mujaheddin claimed responsibility for its first attacks -- in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. Since then, it has also claimed responsibility for a number of attacks in recent months, killing 130 people this year. For the Islamists, the Indian Mujaheddin is battling the government to exact revenge for the persecution of Muslims in India.

In its hate-filled September e-mail, the group announced attacks in Mumbai: "As deadly as the attacks facing residents of Mumbai will be, the only elements responsible for this are the members of the Mumbai counterterrorism unit." The special force is considered violent in its treatment of Islamists. In their e-mail, the terrorists wrote that the names of police officers responsible for the violence were on a death list, and that this time they were very serious.

Shortly after the first shots were fired in the Taj Mahal Hotel on Wednesday evening, hotel security personnel ran into the restaurant. "Quick, quick," they shouted, herding the guests into the kitchen. "Then we hid, as well as we could," says German member of parliament Erika Mann, "always moving from one spot to the next, constantly fleeing." Next to her she saw Indians, Japanese and Arabs running for their lives. "There was one woman who was screaming horribly," says the politician, "she had been forced to leave her two babies behind in the lobby."

Mann and others ran down a spiral staircase into underground hallways. "There were shots behind us," says Mann. But eventually she ran into soldiers who were apparently shooting at the attackers behind her, and after that she was safe.

Unlike Mann, Andreas Liveras, the frozen pastry multimillionaire, never made it to safety with the soldiers. He was found dead later on, with several bullets in his body.

Traumatic History

Instead of following the rest of the group out of the restaurant, Ralph Burkei, the man from Munich, tried to climb down the outside of the hotel. He fell and landed on an awning. He must have been in terrible pain, but he was still alive when he used his mobile phone to call a friend in Munich. "I've broken all of my bones," he said. "Unless someone helps me now, I won't make it."

Burkei called his friend several times that night. But help did not arrive at the awning soon enough to save his life.

The attack on Mumbai has finally turned the world's attention to a region that has always seethed with violence, one in which murders of politicians occur periodically and where terror is practically part of daily life.

India is home to 150 million Muslims, more than in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined. Nevertheless, they are a minority of 13.4 percent in a country of more than one billion people, and many are still tormented by the traumatic memory of one of the biggest expulsions in world history.
When Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru led India to independence in 1947, the British colonial power ordered the division of the subcontinent into two nations, the Union of India and the much smaller Islamic Republic of Pakistan, from which East Pakistan seceded in 1971 to become an independent state, Bangladesh.

The announcement, on the day after independence, of the location of the new border marked the beginning of a conflict that expanded into the second ongoing international political crisis, next to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, brought on by the disintegration of the British Empire: the struggle between warring brothers, Pakistan and India. It was this same struggle that led to the Mumbai massacre.

It began with an ethnic cleansing campaign of previously unknown proportions, in which 5.5 million Hindus and Sikhs were drive south and about six million Muslims north across the new border. Pogroms erupted in villages, neighbors attacked neighbors and almost a million people lost their lives at the hands of violent, fanatical religious warriors. Since its bloody beginnings Pakistan has been plagued by the fear of being swallowed up by its much larger neighbor.

A constantly bleeding wound in this conflict between neighbors is the crisis over one of the most beautiful parts of the world, the Himalayan region of Kashmir. At the time of independence Kashmir, a former princely state, was ruled by a Hindu maharaja, despite the fact that it was 80 percent Muslim. Pakistan, eager to annex Kashmir, sent in Muslim irregular troops. The beleaguered maharaja turned to New Delhi for help and surrendered his realm to the Union of India, which also sent soldiers.

Since early 1949, Kashmir has been split along a United Nations-brokered ceasefire line. India and Pakistan have already waged two bloody wars over Kashmir and threatened each other with nuclear annihilation. Former US President Bill Clinton called the paradisiacal region "the most dangerous place on earth."

The Pakistani military believed it had a good opportunity to weaken India when, in 1989, a rebellion broke out among Muslims in the Indian part of Kashmir. The Pakistan intelligence agency, ISI, invited young Kashmiris to cross the border for training, only to send them back as trained fighters. India brutally struck down the rebellion.

In response, the ISI changed course. From then on, the intelligence agency no longer used primarily Kashmiri nationalists, but Pakistani and Kashmiri Islamists, who invoked jihad against India and sought to "Islamize" Kashmir. After having given the al-Qaida terrorists their start by supporting the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis paved the way for Islamist terrorists to head south.

Even al-Qaida leader Bin Laden had close ties to Kashmiri terrorism. In a new book, former CIA agent Bruce Riedel, now an advisor to US President-elect Barack Obama, describes how Bin Laden and the ISI cooperated in the establishment of the Pakistani Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has since expanded its attacks well beyond Kashmir to strike India directly.

Three months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, a suicide commando attacked the Indian parliament. The incident almost sparked a war between India and Pakistan, because the government in New Delhi saw the handwriting of Pakistani intelligence in the attack. It was only through pressure from Washington that a new war was prevented.

It is precisely those terrorists who apparently almost triggered a nuclear war at the time who the Indians now believe are behind the attacks on Mumbai.

The Pakistan Connection

If it turns out that the terrorists did in fact come from Pakistan, the world will face a new round in the dangerous dispute between the two archenemies. The conflict harbors the risks of a war between the two nuclear powers, which explains why Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has been so eager to show a willingness to cooperate. He is sending his foreign minister to meet with Singh and his intelligence chief and his staff to India to assist in the investigation.

Even before the hours of horror in Mumbai had ended, Indian authorities apparently found evidence of a connection between the attackers and the Pakistani terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba.

As the Indian special forces units advanced through the hotels, room by room, they witnessed grisly scenes, liberated the Islamists' hostages and shot one attacker after another. One terrorist at the Taj Mahal managed to hold out until the end.

"There were bodies lying all over the place, and there was blood everywhere," says one officer, describing the scenes when the Indian authorities stormed the hotel. They counted 50 dead in the lobby alone, and more bodies in a room on the third floor. They also discovered the Islamists' supplies: dates, almonds and bullet rounds. The attackers had apparently prepared for a prolonged siege.

While freeing the hostages, the Indian special units also captured at least one of the terrorists alive. At first the media reported three captured gunmen. On Friday the PTI news agency reported that they had confessed that they were members of Lashkar-e Taiba, or "Army of the Pure."

On Friday evening, the British Daily Mail newspaper reported that at least two of the men arrested were British citizens of Pakistani descent. Scotland Yard sent a team to Mumbai to help Indian investigators. However, the British connection seemed to be discounted over the weekend.

According to the latest media reports, there is one Islamist in police custody, a 21-year-old Pakistani named as Ajmal Qasab who says he was trained in Lashkar camps.

And Indian intelligence is claiming that the attackers, using satellite phones, spoke with men in Pakistan during the gun battles, even speaking directly with a Lashkar commander.

RÜDIGER FALKSOHN, CLEMENS HÖGES, HANS HOYNG, JULIANE VON MITTELSTAEDT, PADMA RAO, BRITTA SANDBERG, HANS-JÜRGEN SCHLAMP, BERNHARD ZAND

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

FROM HOOKERS TO HARRODS

By Karel Berkhout
Amsterdam's city council wants to transform the red light district around the Dutch capital city's train station into "a worthy gateway to the city."

Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen knows exactly what the city's historic center should look like 10 years from now: "The first thing you'll see coming from Central Station is a beautiful, historic city and straight away you are on an exciting walk past the chic and the shabby."

City council finance chief Lodewijk Asscher adds his vision: a walk through Amsterdam's China Town and the city's old ramparts, followed by a cappuccino next to the city's oldest church, the 13th century Oude Kerk.

And at present, the Damrak, the main street between the train station and the city center, is a seedy collection of cheap restaurants and gaudy neon signs. And while the Oudekerksplein, in the heart of the city's red light district, has plenty of brothel windows, there is nowhere to get a cup of decent coffee.

In order to make Cohen's and Asscher's dreams a reality, the city council is taking action. The title of its ambitious 10-year renovation plan for this area is Project 1012, named after the postal code of the city center, famous for its narrow streets and alleys, its medieval houses and canals.

The area is the very heart of Amsterdam, a fact that was underscored last week when the government nominated the city center's 17th century canals for recognition as a United Nations World Heritage site.

Money Laundering

The city council has had enough of the brothels, the shops selling drug paraphernalia, the gambling halls and the souvenir stands that currently clog up the area. It feels the district has fallen prey to organized criminals engaged in the trafficking of drugs and women. Many of the area's establishments are suspected to be fronts for money laundering.

It is not the first time Amsterdam has tackled the red light district's "criminal fraternity." In 2003, a new law gave councils the authority to investigate whether entrepreneurs requesting business permits had criminal connections. Since then, a number of permits have been revoked and several brothel-owners have been bought out by the city council.

"We will continue to be tough in tackling criminality," Cohen says. The number of prostitutes' windows will be reduced by half, to around 250. They will be concentrated on two streets only. The same goes for the coffee shops where cannabis is sold. Their number will also be halved, to 38.

In addition, the plan calls for the closure of shops offering cheap phone calls, souvenirs and other small-scale businesses related to the sex industry, although this will happen on a voluntary basis.

Creative Sector

The city council's plan conjures up images of giant department stores such as Galeries Lafayette or Harrods opening along the Rokin and small craft workshops and galleries around the Oude Kerk. The emphasis in development will be firmly on the creative industry and on culture. This as-yet imaginary district relies on an expectation that the city's economy, which makes up 12 percent of the Netherlands' gross national product, will continue to develop.
Amsterdam's city council has allocated between €40 million and €50 million (between $51.3 million and $64.2 million) for the renovation plan over the next 10 years. This money will go towards redesigning streets in the city center, among other things. A complete transformation of the area, however, including underground car parks for luxury hotels, will cost many times more than the sum appropriated. That financing will have to come from housing corporations, project developers, banks and shops.

Private parties have already shown interest, says Asscher. "The phone is ringing all the time. I have already been approached by a few up-market retail chains. And recently I had a call from a snack-bar owner who wants to open something a bit more upmarket. He realizes that he can make more money that way."

All these initiatives and plans are fine with Cohen. "We will handle the criminals. Businesses and people living in the area will have to do the rest," says the mayor.

Q&A: Bangkok protests

For months, a paralysing political crisis has gripped Thailand - a crisis which pits protesters allied to Bangkok's elite against the government and its largely poor, rural supporters.

Tensions have escalated in recent days, after protesters occupied Bangkok's international and domestic airports, dealing a blow to Thailand's tourism-dependent economy and leaving tens of thousands of travellers stranded.

Now a court has banned dozens of members of the ruling coalition from politics, in another apparent victory for the anti-government protesters.

What are the details of this latest court ruling?

The constitutional court ruling finds that Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat's People's Power Party (PPP), the Machima Thipatai party and the Chart Thai party were guilty of fraud in December 2007 elections that brought a six-party coalition to power with a large majority.

It bars Mr Somchai and 59 executives in the three parties from politics for five years. Of these, 24 are lawmakers who will have to resign their parliamentary seats.

But other lawmakers from the three parties who escaped the politics ban can join other parties, or create new ones, and could then select a new prime minister. In fact, a new "shell" party - Puea Thai (For Thailand) - has already reportedly been established to act as their new home.

Could this mean an end to the crisis?

The ruling appears to have opened the way to the end of the airport occupations. The protesters had demanded the dissolution of the ruling party and the ejection of Mr Somchai from office, so to a certain extent they have got what they wanted.

Their wealthy backers may also have urged an end to the airport occupations, shocked by the dramatic lengths the PAD were prepared to go to, and the damage inflicted on Thailand's economy through their actions.

But the ruling may also create fresh confrontation. Despite Mr Somchai's apparent acceptance of the ruling, it has enraged pro-government groups, among them the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD).

Ultimately the PAD has always insisted a change of faces in government is not enough; it has said it will not be satisfied unless it achieves a complete overhaul of Thailand's political system, to create a "new politics". These differences could lead to more clashes in the future.

What happens now?

In the short term, Deputy Prime Minister Chaowarat Chandeerakul will become caretaker prime minister, a government spokeswoman said. And parliament will then convene to pick a new prime minister within 30 days - as long as PAD protesters do not prevent that.

Who is protesting?

The protests are led by the avowedly royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which claims the government is corrupt and hostile to the country's much-revered monarchy.


The PAD is a loose grouping of royalists, businessmen and the urban middle class opposed to Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted from power in 2006.
After months of camping outside government buildings, the PAD shifted the location of its protests to the airports last week.

It accused Mr Somchai - Thaksin's brother-in-law - of being a puppet of the ousted premier.

The protesters hated Thaksin because his populist policies attracted enormous support from rural areas, and the old elite felt threatened. His power base was too wide, they believed, and they accused him of corruption and nepotism.

Despite Thaksin's recent conviction in absentia on a corruption charge, and the fact that he is in exile, the protesters insist he remains a powerful figure behind the scenes in the ruling party.

What do the protesters want?

The PAD has vowed to continue protests until their demands for a government independent of Thaksin are met.

It complains that rural voters have either been duped or bribed into backing the PPP.

Despite the apparent commitment to democracy implied by the PAD's name, it is in fact calling for restrictions on the democratic system in Thailand, with the one-person, one-vote system to be replaced by a system in which parliament is part-appointed.

Although Thaksin and his successors retain strong support among the rural poor, other groups, including many state employees, have joined the PAD's cause.

Thai society is deeply divided, and observers say that in the long term there are many hurdles in the way of a resolution of the crisis.

Meanwhile, what is the situation at the occupied airports?

There is now an end in sight to the week-long blockade of Bangkok's two main airports, which has crippled the Thai economy and left tens of thousands of frustrated travellers stranded.

Protest leaders now say the airports will be cleared by Wednesday, and it is hoped that flights will begin to leave Suvarnabhumi international airport on Friday. Officials have not commented on when flights will resume from the smaller domestic terminal, Don Mueang.

There were initial fears that damage to the international airport could have seen operations suspended for up to another two weeks, said the official in charge of Thailand's airports, but inspections suggest that it is not damaged.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm

Published: 2008/12/02 17:50:33 GMT

India’s 9/11? Not Exactly

Op-Ed Contributor
By AMITAV GHOSH
Published: December 2, 2008

SINCE the terrorist assaults began in Mumbai last week, the metaphor of the World Trade Center attacks has been repeatedly invoked. From New Delhi to New York, pundits and TV commentators have insisted that “this is India’s 9/11” and should be treated as such. Nearly every newspaper in India has put “9/11” into its post-massacre headlines. The secretary general of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the leading Hindu nationalist political faction, has not only likened the Mumbai attack to those on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but has insisted that “our response must be close to what the American response was.”

There can be no doubt that there are certain clear analogies between the two attacks: in both cases the terrorists were clearly at great pains to single out urban landmarks, especially those that serve as symbolic points of reference in this increasingly interconnected world. There are similarities, too, in the unexpectedness of the attacks, the meticulousness of their planning, their shock value and the utter unpreparedness of the security services. But this is where the similarities end. Not only were the casualties far greater on Sept. 11, 2001, but the shock of the attack was also greatly magnified by having no real precedent in America’s history.

India’s experience of terrorist attacks, on the other hand, far predates 2001. Although this year has been one of the worst in recent history, 1984 was arguably worse still. That year an insurgency in the Punjab culminated in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. This in turn led to riots that took the lives of some 2,000 Sikhs.

I was living in Delhi then and I recall vividly the sense of besetting crisis, of extreme fragility, of being pushed to the edge of an abyss: it was the only time I can recall when the very project of the Indian republic seemed to be seriously endangered. Yet for all its horror, the portents of 1984 were by no means fulfilled: in the following years, there was a slow turnaround; the Punjab insurgency gradually quieted down; and although the victims of the massacres may never receive justice in full measure, there has been some judicial retribution.

This has been another terrible year: even before the invasion of Mumbai, several hundred people had been killed and injured in terrorist assaults. Yet the attacks on Jaipur, Ahmedabad, New Delhi, Guwahati and elsewhere did not set off chains of retaliatory violence of the sort that would almost certainly have resulted 10 or 15 years ago. Nor did the violence create a sense of existential crisis for the nation, as in 1984. Thus, despite all loss of life, this year could well be counted as a victory not for terrorism but for India’s citizenry.

The question now is this: Will the November invasion of Mumbai change this? Although there is no way of knowing the answer, it is certain that if the precedent of 9/11 is taken seriously the outcome will be profoundly counterproductive. As a metaphor “9/11” is invested not just with the memory of what happened in Manhattan and at the Pentagon in 2001, but also with the penumbra of emotions that surround the events: the feeling that “the world will never be the same,” the notion that this was “the day the world woke up” and so on. In this sense 9/11 refers not just to the attacks but also to its aftermath, in particular to an utterly misconceived military and judicial response, one that has had disastrous consequences around the world.

When commentators repeat the metaphor of 9/11 they are in effect pushing the Indian government to mount a comparable response. If India takes a hard line modeled on the actions of the Bush administration, the consequences are sure to be equally disastrous. The very power of the 9/11 metaphor blinds us to the possibility that there might be other, more productive analogies for the invasion of Mumbai: one is the Madrid train bombings of March 11, 2004, which led to a comparable number of casualties and created a similar sense of shock and grief.
If 9/11 is a metaphor for one kind of reaction to terrorism, then 11-M (as it is known in Spanish) should serve as shorthand for a different kind of response: one that emphasizes vigilance, patience and careful police work in coordination with neighboring countries. This is exactly the kind of response India needs now, and fortunately this seems to be the course that the government, led by the Congress Party, has decided to follow. Government spokesmen have been at some pains to specify that India does not intend to respond with a troop buildup along the border with Pakistan, as the Bharatiya Janata-led government did after the attack by Muslim extremists on India’s Parliament in 2001.

A buildup would indeed serve no point at all, since this is not the kind of war that can be fought along a border, by conventional armies. The Indian government would do better to focus on an international effort to eliminate the terrorists’ hide-outs and safe houses, some of them deep inside Pakistan. India will also need to cooperate with those in the Pakistani government who have come around to a belated recognition of the dangers of terrorism.

The choice of targets in Mumbai clearly owes something to the September bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, another high-profile site sure to include foreign casualties. Here already there is common ground between the two countries — for if this has been a bad year for India in regard to terrorism, then for Pakistan it has been still worse.

It is clear now that Pakistan’s establishment is so deeply divided that it no longer makes sense to treat it as a single entity. Sometimes a crisis is also an opportunity: this is a moment when India can forge strategic alliances with those sections of the Pakistani government, military and society who understand that they, too, are under fire.

Much will depend, in the coming days, on Mumbai’s reaction to the invasion. That the city was not stricken by turmoil in the immediate aftermath of the attack is undoubtedly a positive sign. That the terrorists concentrated their assault on the most upscale parts of the city had the odd consequence of limiting the disruption in the everyday lives of most Mumbai residents. Chhatrapati Shivaji station, for instance, was open just a few hours after the terrorists there were cleared out. In the northern suburbs, the home of Bollywood’s studios, actors were summoned to rehearsal even while the battles were being fought.

But with each succeeding day, tensions are rising and the natural anxieties of the inhabitants are being played upon. Still, this is not a moment for precipitate action: if India can react with dispassionate but determined resolve, then 2008 may yet be remembered as a moment when the tide turned in a long, long battle. For if there is any one lesson to be learned from the wave of terrorist attacks that has convulsed the globe over the last decade it is this: Defeat or victory is not determined by the success of the strike itself; it is determined by the response.