‘A deslocação sinistra da Al-Qaeda para o Norte de Áfica‘ in Times, 30 de Julho de 2007

por Amir Taheri

On Monday the Iraqi Army launched a large-scale offensive in Diyala north of Baghdad to wipe out al-Qaeda's last remaining hideouts in the country. Since the tide of the war turned last winter, thousands of al-Qaeda jihadists have fled Iraq.

Some returned home and resumed normal life. Others, looking for new places to pursue their holy war against “Zionists and Crusaders”, ended up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Thailand and helped to reignite the fires of jihad.

However, North Africa appears to have attracted the largest number of returnees. According to the buzz in jihadist circles, confirmed by officials and analysts, a new arc of terror is taking shape in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania - the five countries of the so-called Arab Maghreb in North Africa.

Algeria was first struck by Islamic terror in 1986. Seven years of violence were triggered by the Front for the Islamic Salvation (FIS) in 1992, but by 2000, the Army and groups of armed citizens had crushed the FIS and its more violent offshoots. In 2006 Algerian jihadists announced a merger with al-Qaeda to create al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. Since then they have received huge sums of money and quantities of arms from al-Qaeda sympathisers in the Gulf states, enabling them to make a timid - though no less deadly - comeback.

By all accounts, Algeria may be facing a new round of the War against Terror as it faces mounting political and economic problems. In the first phase of the war, Algerian jihadists never used suicide tactics. In recent months they have carried out at least four such operations, indicating total adoption of al-Qaeda tactics. They have also tried to kill President Bouteflika on at least four occasions. The latest plot was uncovered last week, 24 hours before a provincial visit.

Last month the President invited Ahmed Ouyahya, the architect of Algeria's victory against the terrorists, to assume the premiership again. His return acknowledges that the policy of cuddling the Islamists, preached by the former Premier, Abdulaziz Belkhadem, has failed.

While Algeria is well prepared to face a resurgence of jihadism, Morocco, long recognised as one of the most moderate and peaceful countries in the Muslim world, may prove more vulnerable.

Visitors returning after three or four years would be struck by changes in the urban scenery. The number of al-Qaeda-style beards has grown along with the number of neo-hijab headscarves designed to identify women as partisans of jihad. Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber. One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock's The Birds. Jihadist propaganda is sold on the streets in stalls provided by the municipal authorities.

Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists. Over the past year, almost 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with terrorism after attacks that claimed at least 60 lives.

Few of the jihadists come from the poor and illiterate slum-dwelling masses. Most of those arrested are graduates, often from well-to-do middle-class families.

More disturbing is that dozens were army, police and security officers. According to a senior official, the jihadists used the Army to obtain military training and the Government had to abolish the conscription system that obliged all male Moroccans to join the Army for two years. The Government has also banned military personnel from attending mosque congregations.

Moroccan Islamists use a more sophisticated strategy than their Algerian counterparts. While preparing for armed action and terrorism, they have also created a range of charities offering services that the Government fails to provide, such as interest-free loans, medical care, scholarships, support for newlyweds and subsidised travel to Mecca. All are handled under the umbrella of the Justice and Benevolence foundation, an old branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Moroccan Islamism has its own political facade, the Justice and Development Party ( PJD) copied from the Turkish model known as the AKP. Hundreds of PJD cadres have been trained in Turkey.

In imitation of the AKP, the PJD has participated in elections and presented itself as an Islamic version of European Christian Democratic parties. It has also worked hard to reassure the US. Its leaders have been invited to Washington and its young cadres employed in Congress. Last year when King Muhammad VI wanted to ban the PJD, the US intervened to dissuade him. Last week the king published a cable of congratulations that he had sent the party for the success of its annual conference. But despite the huge sums it spent in last year's election, the PJD ended up with only 47 of the 325 seats in parliament.

Moroccan Islamism operates through what looks like a set of Russian Matryushka dolls. The smallest and the deadliest, hidden in the others, is the Group of Islamic Moroccan Combatants (GICM), an al-Qaeda affiliate and architect of the Madrid terror attack that claimed 191 lives. Another doll is the contraband network that purchases most of Morocco's production of hashish and smuggles it into Europe. The profits are used to finance jihad.

According to Moroccan officials, an unknown number of jihadists from the Gulf states have settled in the North African kingdom over the past decade or so, creating sleeper cells. “We know they are there,” a senior official told me. “Many have married Moroccans and produced offspring. Thanks to their wealth, they have secured a reputation in the communities they settled in. But they constitute an army of moles, a danger to us and to Europe across the Mediterranean.” While al-Qaeda is being crushed in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, it is building a new life in North Africa without attracting attention from the powers it regards as its ultimate enemies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4425820.ece
JPTF 2008/07/30

‘Cerca de três quartos do irlandeses opõem-se a novo referendo‘ in EU Observer, 28 de Julho de 2008

Almost three quarters of Irish voters are opposed to the idea of a second vote on the EU's Lisbon treaty, according to a fresh poll.

The survey, revealed on Sunday (27 July), was commissioned by the London-based eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, and carried out among 1,000 respondents between 21 and 23 July, shortly after a visit by French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Dublin.

The leader of France, which currently hold the EU's six-month rotating presidency, last week proposed to the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, that a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty be held on the same day as elections to the European Parliament next June.

But the new poll signals that there is currently not much appetite among Irish voters to be asked about the same document again: 71 percent of respondents said they were against the move, compared to 24 percent who were in favour.

The survey also suggested that in the case of a repeated referendum, even more people would vote No than the first time around: 62 percent of those polled now said they would reject the treaty while just 38 percent would vote Yes.

On 12 June, 53.4 percent of the Irish voted against the Treaty and 46.6 percent in favour, on a 53.1 percent turnout.

Of those who had given their blessings to the EU's reform treaty back then, 17 percent now said they would vote against it, while six percent of former opponents would now vote in favour of the document.

The negative sentiment has also significantly grown among the citizens who did not take part in the first referendum: 57 percent would vote No, while 26 percent would vote Yes.

Juncker backs EU-wide message to the Irish

Since taking on his role as a temporary EU president, French president Sarkozy has been suggesting he would press hard for a solution to the current stalemate over the Lisbon treaty by the end of this year.

On his visit last week to Dublin however, he admitted the solution may not be found during his country's EU presidency while also denying that Ireland must vote again.

Luxembourg's prime minister Jean Claude Juncker - who had previously faced a similar situation when French and Dutch voters rejected a European Constitution during his country's presidency in 2005 - has argued the Irish should vote again after they receive a new message of guarantees on national concerns.

"A unanimous decision from the European Council [representing 27 member states] promising not to interfere with the neutrality, abortion laws and taxation of Ireland" could "make the treaty comprehensible to the Irish," Mr Juncker said in an interview for Austrian paper Kurier, published on Saturday (26 July).

Meanwhile, the Irish government has initiated high-level contact with the two main opposition parties - Fine Gael and Labour - to discuss the formation of an all-party body on the Lisbon treaty, according to the Irish Times.

The new body would gather various opinions on how Dublin should proceed concerning the June referendum defeat, with the findings to be presented to other EU leaders at their top-level gatherings under the French helm in October and December.

Ratification map

Twenty out of 27 EU states have definitively ratified the EU treaty. Spain, Germany and Poland's parliaments have approved the text but the respective heads of state must still sign off on the document, with the German constitutional court still considering a legal challenge.

The Italian lower house is expected to back the text this week. Swedish MPs are set to pass the treaty without serious opposition when they begin their autumn session in September. And Czech deputies are planning to hold a vote in autumn, after the verdict of the country's constitutional court on a legal appeal.

The Lisbon treaty aims to reform the EU's decision-making and institutions as agreed in a basic package of changes already included in the European Constitution adopted in 2004.

JPTF 2008/07/08

‘Acção militar contra o Irão não é opção, dizem os ministros dos negócios estrangeiros da UE‘ in EU Observer, 22 de Julho de 2008

European Union foreign ministers on Tuesday (22 July) called for further diplomacy in dealing with concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and ruled out a military strike as an option.

UK foreign secretary David Miliband said following the meeting: "We are 100 percent focussed on a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian issue."

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said there was "no other route" apart from diplomacy.

"The position of the European Union is clear," said Mr Solana according to the AP. "We want to find a diplomatic solution to this, in particular to clarify to the fullest the nature of their nuclear programme."

Mr Solana outlined for the ministers the results of a meeting on Saturday between Iran and diplomats from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, and Russia, where Tehran was encouraged to halt its uranium enrichment in return for a package of economic and political carrots.

With the US for the first time sending a high-ranking diplomat to the meeting, expectations were high that better relations between the two main antagonists would bear fruit. However, Iran maintained that its nuclear programme had only peaceful purposes.

American secretary of state Condoleeza Rice described Iran's negotiations following the meeting as "not serious."

Mr Solana on Tuesday however said he hoped to have "to have clear and simple answers" from Tehran within two weeks' time.

The six nations and the EU have given Iran a fortnight to reply to the latest offer. If the response is unsatisfactory, further sanctions could be considered.

"The offer that has been made to Iran on the one hand...and the sanctions on the other, if they refuse to engage and reply, is exactly the right approach," said Mr Miliband following the EU ministers' meeting.
http://euobserver.com/9/26526?print=1
JPTF 2008/07/23

Bush e Ahmadinejad num ‘amor impossível‘, cartoon publicado in Telegraph, 18 de julho de 2008

A Sharia no Iémene: menina de 10 anos divorcia-se após maus tratos pelo marido, in CNN 16 de Julho de 2008

Nujood Ali is 10 years old, but she already has been married and divorced. It was an arranged marriage in which she said a husband three times her age routinely beat and raped her.

"When I got married, I was afraid. I didn't want to leave home. I wanted to stay with my brothers and sisters and my mom and dad," she said, speaking to CNN with the permission of her parents.

"I didn't want to sleep with him, but he forced me to. He hit me, insulted me."

As she plays marbles with her brothers and sister, Nujood is a portrait of innocence, with a shy smile and a playful nature.

But what happened evokes anger and shame. Asked if what she went through was torture, she nods quietly. Watch Nujod describe what happened »

Nujood's parents married her off in February to a man in his 30s whom she describes as old and ugly.

Her parents said they thought they were putting her in the care of her husband's family, but Nujood said he would often beat her into submission.

Nujood then turned to her family for mercy.

"When I heard, my heart burned for her; he wasn't supposed to sleep with her," said Nujood's mother, who asked not to be identified.

But, initially, she also told her daughter she could not help her -- that she belonged to her husband now.

Nujood's father, Ali Mohammed Ahdal, said he is angry about what happened to his daughter. "He was a criminal, a criminal. He did hateful things to her," he said. "He didn't keep his promise to me that he wouldn't go near her until she was 20."

When contacted by CNN, the girl's former husband declined to comment.

Nujood's parents, like so many others in Yemen, struck a social bargain when they decided to have their daughter wed. More than half of all Yemeni girls are married off before the age of 18, according to Oxfam International, a nonprofit group that fights global poverty and injustice.

Many times girls are forced to marry older men, including some who already have at least one wife, Oxfam said. According to tribal customs, the girls are no longer viewed as a financial or moral burden to their parents.

"There is always a fear that the girl will do something to dishonor the family: She will run away with a guy, she will have relations with a boy. So this is always the phobia that the families have," said Suha Bashren of Oxfam International.

Bashren calls the tradition of child brides in Yemen a national crisis. She works with young girls to protect them from early marriage, abuse and one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

The Yemeni government is holding legal and religious workshops to try to deal with the issue of early marriage. But experts say marrying off a young daughter is generally still seen as the right thing to do.

"A lot of people in the public don't think that this is wrong or that what happened to her was abuse," Bashren said.

In Yemen, there is nothing new or extraordinary about Nujood's story because children have been married off for generations. The country's legal minimum age for marriage was 15 till a decade ago, when the law was changed to allow for children even younger to be wed.

But what is most unusual is that this young girl took such an intensely private dispute and went public with it.

Nujood said she made up her mind to escape from her husband, describing how on a visit to her parents' home she broke free and traveled to the central courthouse across town and demanded to speak to a judge.

"He asked me, 'What do you want?' And I said, 'I want a divorce.' And he said, 'You're married?' And I said, 'Yes,'" she recalled.

What unfolded in those few days in April gripped the country on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula.

Nujood got her divorce, but based on the principles of Islamic Sharia law, her husband was compensated, not prosecuted. Nujood was ordered to pay him more than $200. The human rights lawyer who represented her donated the money.

But for this determined spirit, it was still a sweet victory.

"I did this so that people would listen and think about not marrying their daughters off as young as I was," she said with a shy smile.

Now back at the family home, she said she won't go outside to play -- that all the attention bothers her. Some still condemn the young girl for speaking out, believing that she shouldn't have challenged convention.

Human rights advocates said it will take more than a generation if this practice is to change in Yemen for other children.

"These girls are living in a misery that no one is talking about," Oxfam's Bashren said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/15/yemen.childbride/index.html
JPTF 2008/07/16

Irão avisa sobre a sua resposta: ‘Atacaremos a marinha americana e Israel ficará a arder‘ in Guardian, 9 de Julho de 2008

Iran kept up a barrage of conflicting messages over its nuclear programme yesterday, threatening to strike the US navy and "set Israel alight" if it was attacked.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president, dismissed the threat of war as a "silly joke", even as he again rejected the idea that Iran halt uranium enrichment - the key demand of the international community repeated at the G8 summit in Japan.

The strongest language came from Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate say over the most sensitive issues.

"The first US shot against Iran would set the United States' vital interests in the world on fire," said Shirazi, a cleric who is Khamenei's representative to the elite Revolutionary Guards naval forces.

"Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the targets that would be set on fire in Iran's crushing response," he said, the Fars news agency reported.

Analysts said that while Iran has often warned of a crushing response to any aggression, specific warnings of this kind are unusual. The phrase echoed threats made by Saddam Hussein against Israel on the eve of the 1991 Gulf war.

It was the latest in a series of now almost daily exchanges over Iran's nuclear programme including signals from Israel and the US that they would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Washington and its allies accuse Iran of secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran says it has no military ambitions and is simply seeking to generate power for civil purposes.

Shirazi's remarks came as Revolutionary Guard missile and naval units began war games - codenamed The Great Prophet III - aimed at "improving the combat capability" of the forces. The Guards are responsible for Iran's most significant ballistic missiles including the Shahab-3, whose range puts Israel and US bases in the Gulf within reach.

Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Malaysia that he hoped to see a fresh approach by the next US administration to make up for the "domineering hegemony" of George Bush. "I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," he said, predicting that Israel's "regime" would collapse without the need for Iranian action. He dismissed the idea of war as "a silly joke." The US was no longer in a position to attack Iran. "In the US, his wise scholars will not allow Mr Bush to commit political suicide and of course the economic, political and military situation will not allow Mr Bush to do that," he said.

Ahmadinejad also told the leaders of the G8 that their policies would "accelerate them along the road to a precipice" and reiterated he would not accept demands to stop enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants and to make warheads if refined to a higher degree.

Despite these comments, diplomacy is still being actively pursued. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is to return to Iran for talks with its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, before the end of the month, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, told reporters at the G8 summit.

Solana presented Iran with a revised package of economic, technical and political incentives last month on behalf of the five permanent members of the UN security council, plus Germany.

Crucially, the package includes an offer of assistance with civilian nuclear technology that has been widely publicised in the Iranian media and appears to have helped stimulate a lively internal debate among the country's leaders. Solana described Tehran's weekend response as a "complicated and difficult letter that must be thoroughly analysed".

French officials said the Iranian document failed to mention halting uranium enrichment or a reciprocal "freeze for freeze" which would halt sanctions against Iran. "There is no give on the substance whatsoever," said one diplomat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/iran.nuclear
JPTF 2008/07/08

‘Juiz britânico diz que a Sharia islâmica deve ser usada no Reino Unido‘ in Daily Mail, 3 de Julho de 2008

The most senior judge in England tonight gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.

He signal of approval for voluntary sharia tribunals brought protests from lawyers who fear that in some Islamic communities women do not have a full and equal say and that they could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia arrangements.

Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: 'There should be one law by which everyone is held to account.

'I have considerable concerns that well-crafted and carefully designed laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups could be compromised.

'I have concerns over a system of law that may cause one party to be disadvantaged.'

Resolution, the organisation of family law solicitors, said people should govern their lives in accordance with religious principles 'provided that those beliefs and traditions do not contradict the fundamental principle of equality on which this country’s laws are based.'

Spokesman Teresa Richardson said religious law 'must be used to find solutions which are consistent with the basic principles of family law in this country and people must always have redress to the civil courts where they so choose.'

Robert Whelan of the Civitas think tank said: 'Everybody is governed by English law and it is not possible to sign away your legal rights.

'That is why guarantees on consumer products always have to tell customers their statutory rights are not affected.

'There is not much doubt that in traditional Islamic communities women do not enjoy the freedoms that women in this country have had for 100 years or more.

'It is very easy to put pressure on young women in a male-dominated household.

'The English law stands to protect people from intimidation in such circumstances.'

Tories warned that principles of equality under the law must be respected.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'The Lord Chief Justice correctly points out that there is a tradition in this country of allowing mediation to take place subject to other legal principles as long as it is voluntary and not subject to coercion, and with outcomes which are not fundamentally incompatible with our own legal principles.

'Any that are incompatible cannot and should never be enforceable.

'One of the key aspects of our free society in Britain is equality under our own laws. It is important that this should be understood and respected by all in our country.'

A spokesman for Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice said: 'English law, which is based on our shared values of equality and a respect for the rule of law, takes precedence over any other legal system.

'The Government has no intention of changing this position. Alongside this it is possible for other dispute resolution systems on matters of civil law to be accommodated, so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of England and Wales and are abided by on a voluntary basis

But his remarks - which give the green light from the highest judicial office to the informal sharia courts already operated by numerous mosques - provoked a storm of criticism.

Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by sharia could leave women or vulnerable people at a serious disadvantage.

Tories said that equality under the law must be respected and warned that outcomes incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.

Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams surrounded himself in controversy with a lecture in which he suggested Islamic law could have official status and that it could govern marital law, financial transactions and arbitration in disputes.

The Lord Chief Justice said today of the Archbishop's views: 'It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes.'

He added that there was 'widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of sharia law'.

Lord Phillips said: 'Those who in this country are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator.

'There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.'

Lord Phillips said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or the cutting off of hands - was 'out of the question' in Britain, he said.

'So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country,' he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
JPTF 2008/07/03

‘Presidentes da Alemanha e da Polónia recusam assinatura do Tratado de Lisboa‘ in Der Spiegel, 1 de Julho de 2008

Attempts to reform the European Union's institutions, already in disarray following Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty last month, have suffered fresh blows in the last two days with the refusal of the presidents of Germany and Poland to complete the ratification of the treaty.

The presidents of Germany and Poland have said they won't sign the European Union reform treaty for the time being in a new setback following Ireland's rejection of the accord in a referendum last month.
German President Horst Köhler's office announced on Monday he would not sign the ratification documents until the Federal Constitutional Court, the country's highest court, rules on legal challenges to the treaty, which aims to streamline the bloc's institutions following the 2004 accession of central and eastern European countries.

Köhler's role is largely ceremonial but he still has the power to halt legislation. The court had asked him not to sign the treaty, approved by both houses of the German parliament earlier this year, pending its hearing of two challenges brought by the Left Party and by a politician from Bavaria's conservative Christian Social Union party. There is no date set for a ruling by the court, but it may not come until next year.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski followed suit on Tuesday by saying he will not sign the treaty either for the time being because of Ireland's rejection.

Kaczynski told Polish newspaper Dziennik that it was "pointless" to sign the treaty even though Poland's parliament had ratified it in April.

Asked by the newspaper if he would sign the treaty, Kaczynski said: "This is now pointless. But it is difficult to say how this whole thing will end."

The Lisbon Treaty is intended to ensure that the EU's institutions remain workable following the accession of 12 mainly Central and Eastern European countries to the bloc since 2004 which enlarged it to 27 member countries.

It has to be ratified by all member states but Ireland's rejection of it has thrown the reform plans into disarray. Irish voters rejected the treaty for reasons ranging from the fact the text is incomprehensible to concerns it would bring higher taxes or legalized abortion.

"The Bloc Will Go on Functioning"

Kaczynski likened the situation of the EU to that in 2005 when French and Dutch voters rejected a more ambitious EU constitution, which was later revamped into the Lisbon Treaty.

"The bloc functioned, functions and will go on functioning. It's not perfect but such a complicated structure cannot be perfect," he said.

The fresh setback comes as France takes over the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union from Slovenia on Tuesday with French President Nicholas Sarkozy pledging to restore public faith in the EU and get the treaty, which he helped to broker last year, back on track.

In a live televised interview on Monday, Sarkozy said he would address voters' concerns by pushing for tax breaks on products such as gasoline.

"Things are not going well. Things are not going well at all," Sarkozy told France 3 television. "Europe worries people and, worse than that, I find, little by little our fellow citizens are asking themselves if after all the national level isn't better equipped to protect them than the European level," he said, adding that was not the case.

"We have to think about how we can make this Europe a means to protect Europeans in their daily lives ... We must not be afraid of this word -- 'protection'," he said, adding that citizens wanted to be shielded from the risks of globalization.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-563127,00.html
JPTF 2008/07/01

‘As sanções económicas funcionam com o Irão?‘ in Der Spiegel, 30 de Junho de 2008

The international community is hoping that new sanctions on Iran will turn the country away from its nuclear program. An economic embargo is, perhaps, the last chance for peace. But can it work?

On the one hand, formulaic diplomacy is being strictly adhered to. His Excellency, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, Dr. Javier Solana, recently presented to his Iranian counterpart, Manucher Mottaki, the latest offer from the so-called group of six nations, consisting of the three European powers Great Britain, France and Germany, as well as China, Russia and the United States. The goal is international cooperation in determining the true purpose of Iran's nuclear program.

In the letter accompanying the offer, the alliance expressed its deepest respect for Iran as "one of the oldest civilizations in the world." The last of the signatures on the third page belonged to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Mottaki wanted to know whether it is her original signature, and not from a signature machine or a photocopy. Of course Ms. Rice personally signed the document,Solana assured him. Mottaki gathered together his papers, called the assembled journalists and photographers into the room and began the transfer ceremony with apparent pride, as if to say: Here it is, mail from the Great Satan, and signed in person, no less.

On the other hand, the threats are growing increasingly frequent. Just 10 days ago, 100 Israeli planes flew 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) out over the Mediterranean as part of a military exercise. In the flight, they covered exactly the same distance they would have to cover in an attack on the Iranian uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

Not long later, Israeli experts in the know began commenting publicly on potential links between the secretive nuclear programs of Iran, Syria and North Korea. The facility the Israelis bombed in Syria last September, they said, was believed to have been producing plutonium and passing the weapons-grade material on to Tehran. They further said there is a discrepancy between the amount of plutonium North Korea claims to have produced and the amount the country was in fact capable of producing -- and that the difference could suggest that some of the plutonium was going to Iran. The conclusion? Iran could very well be capable of making a bomb by 2010.

The message these experts have sought to convey is that unless this development is stopped, it won't be long before the next war breaks out in the Middle East.

But what is the alternative? Is there any chance that the talks Solana plans to conduct on behalf of the group of six will result in a breakthrough? Will international sanctions produce the desired effect? The government in Tehran is already paying a high price for its refusal to stop enriching uranium and negotiate [...]

Ver artigo completo na revista Der Spiegel.
JPTF 30/06/2008

Obama versus McCain: ‘That´s ageism‘ in Geopolitics Central

‘O êxtase fantasioso da Europa‘ por Ivan Krastev in OpenDemocracy, 26 de Junho de 2008

‘EUA começam a ganhar a guerra‘ in El Pais, 26 de Junho de 2008

Moveon.org, el más poderoso grupo de apoyo a la causa demócrata, acaba de poner en circulación un nuevo anuncio sobre Irak en el que una mujer con un niño en sus brazos advierte a John McCain que no se le ocurra contar con su pequeño para continuar con la guerra por 100 años más. El objetivo principal de esta campaña no es, en realidad, denunciar al candidato republicano, que nunca ha hecho semejante pronóstico, sino mantener dramáticamente de actualidad un conflicto que ya no merece la atención preferente de los medios de comunicación y del que empieza a asentarse una visión mucho más positiva.

Desde hace meses, en Estados Unidos se lee y se oye menos sobre Irak, y lo que se ve o se oye son, por lo general, buenas noticias. Los principales noticieros diarios de las tres grandes cadenas han emitido en los seis primeros meses de este año, según un estudio de una firma especializada, 181 minutos de noticias relacionadas con Irak, comparado con los 1.157 que destinaron a esa cobertura a lo largo de todo el año anterior. CBS ha decidido eliminar el cargo de corresponsal permanente en Bagdad y mantener allí tan sólo un productor.

"La violencia por sí sola ya no es noticia en Irak", reconoce la corresponsal de Fox, Anita McNaught. La semana pasada, cuando una bomba acabó con la vida de 51 personas en un mercado de Bagdad, sólo una de las grandes cadenas lo mencionó brevemente en su principal informativo.

Si Irak está hoy en las noticias es, fundamentalmente, para dar testimonio de los progresos conseguidos en el último año. El diario The New York Times publicaba el pasado sábado en primera página: "La violencia en todo Irak está en su nivel más bajo desde marzo de 2004. Las dos principales ciudades, Bagdad y Basora, viven una calma desconocida desde hace años. La tercera, Mosul, está siendo objeto de una fuerte operación de seguridad. El Ejército iraquí retomó sin resistencia la ciudad de Amara, antes bajo control de las milicias chiíes. Existe la impresión de que el primer ministro, Nuri al Maliki, tiene más energía que ninguno de sus antecesores".

"Irak es hoy un lugar de punta a cabo mucho mejor que hace un año", aseguró el lunes el presidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas norteamericanas, almirante Mike Muller, al presentar un informe del Pentágono que daba cuenta de la notable disminución de la violencia y los progresos obtenidos en todos los frentes desde que en 2007 comenzó una nueva estrategia conducida por el general David Petraeus.

Esos progresos han sido corroborados por observadores independientes. Un estudio elaborado por analistas de Brookings Institution en Washington anotaba en mayo pasado la cifra de 550 civiles iraquíes muertos, en comparación con los 2.600 que perdieron la vida el año pasado.

Esa misma fuente señala la muerte de 19 soldados norteamericanos en mayo, por 126 hace un año -ya mueren más estadounidenses en Afganistán que en Irak-, y confirma avances notables, tanto de orden político como económico. El número de líderes suníes colaborando con EE UU, por ejemplo, se ha multiplicado por cuatro y la producción de petróleo ha aumentado en medio millón de barriles por día.

Esta nueva situación podría tener consecuencias en una campaña electoral en la que el candidato republicano es un firme partidario de continuar la presencia militar en el país árabe, y el candidato demócrata Barack Obama propone una retirada escalonada pero total.

Por el momento, el efecto es tenue y se aprecia más en las columnas de los periódicos que en las encuestas. Los norteamericanos parecen, por ahora, seguir deseando la retirada, a pesar de la oleada de buenas noticias. Un 63% de la población sigue considerando hoy que no merece la pena seguir en Irak, según una encuesta reciente de ABC-The Washington Post, apenas un 1% menos que el pasado mes de abril.

"La guerra es un asunto cerrado desde comienzos de 2007", opina el articulista Frank Rich. "No importa lo que pase en Irak, no importa lo que diga cualquiera de los lados implicados en este debate, una mayoría de los norteamericanos considera que esta guerra ha sido un error y quiere que nos retiremos".

Para la campaña demócrata, no obstante, esta nueva visión sobre Irak es motivo de preocupación. Encuestas recientes demuestran que una mayoría de votantes independientes creen que McCain está mejor capacitado para manejar el problema de Irak. Obama se ha visto a la defensiva cuando su rival le ha invitado públicamente a viajar a Irak para comprobar por sí mismo los éxitos obtenidos. Finalmente, tendrá que viajar, pero se estudia el momento más oportuno para obtener efectos positivos de esa visita.

Inquieta en la campaña demócrata, no sólo el hecho de que la menor presencia de Irak en los medios de comunicación reste presión sobre McCain, sino que, de repente, algunos votantes empiecen a mirar de otra manera a George Bush y a ver con menos recelo una nueva Administración republicana.

"Los más honestos entre los enemigos de la estrategia en Irak tendrán que reconocer que Bush, al que se supone tonto, ha hecho esto bien", escribía el martes David Brooks en The Washington Post.

En todo caso, es muy pronto aún para que nadie pueda situar a Irak en el campo de sus logros o de sus méritos electorales. El propio informe del Pentágono presentado el lunes recordaba que los progresos hechos en ese país eran "frágiles y todavía coyunturales". Y, en lo que respecta a los aspectos políticos, no se vislumbra aún la nación estable y democrática que se prometió durante la invasión y que permitiría el regreso triunfal de las tropas. Un informe presentado esta semana en el Congreso por la Oficina de Control al Gobierno destaca que la Administración resalta ciertas cifras pero oculta otras, como el número de iraquíes con acceso a energía eléctrica o el dinero invertido en la reconstrucción, que contribuyen a un panorama mucho más sombrío.

"Irak continúa siendo un desconcierto y, para ser honestos, da la impresión de que lo será perpetuamente", afirma el general retirado Nathan Freier, del Centro de Estudios Estratégicos Internacionales, en Washington.

Ya es un hecho que la presencia militar en Irak continuará más o menos al nivel actual -150.000 soldados- cuando los norteamericanos acudan a las urnas el próximo 4 de noviembre. Es posible también que, salvo sucesos sorpresivos pero no sorprendentes, el proceso de estabilización continúe lentamente. Queda por ver si para entonces los votantes ven la botella medio llena o medio vacía.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/EE/UU/empieza/ganar/guerra/elpepuint/20080626elpepiint_10/Tes

JPTF 2008/06/26

‘A longa guerra: geopolítica da energia‘ in Geopolitics Central

‘Que fazer com o Tratado de Lisboa? Enterrá-lo!‘ in The Economist, 19 de Junho de 2008

Voters have once again shot an arrow into the heart of a European Union treaty. This time it was the Irish, who voted no to the Lisbon treaty on June 12th by 53-47%, on a high turnout. They follow the French and Dutch, who rejected Lisbon's predecessor, the EU constitution, in 2005. In 2001 the Irish also turned down the Nice treaty, but the Danes started this game when they voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992.

Europe's political leaders react to these unwelcome expressions of popular will in three depressingly familiar stages. First they declare portentously that the European club is in deep “crisis” and unable to function. Next, even though treaties have to be ratified by all members to take effect, they put the onus of finding a solution on the country that has said no. Last, they start to hint that the voters in question should think again, and threaten that a second rejection may force the recalcitrant country to leave the EU. The sole exception to this three-stage process was the Franco-Dutch no in 2005. Then, after two years of debate the politicians hit on the cynical wheeze of writing the constitution's main elements into the incomprehensible Lisbon treaty, with the deliberate aim of avoiding the need to consult Europe's voters directly again.

Now the Irish, the only people in the EU to be offered a referendum on Lisbon, have shot down even this wheeze. And as EU leaders gathered for a Brussels summit, after The Economist went to press, most had duly embarked on their usual three-stage reaction, all the while promising to “respect” the outcome of the Irish referendum—by which they mean to look for a way round it (see article). Some have had the gall to argue, with a straight face, that Lisbon must be brought into effect despite the Irish no because it will make the EU more democratic. This is Brussels's equivalent of a doctor saying that the operation was a success, but the patient died. In truth, it is the Lisbon treaty that should be allowed to die.

Democracy and efficiency don't always go together
Every part of EU leaders' three-stage response is wrong-headed. The Irish rejection of the treaty is a setback, certainly. But in the days after the vote, the Brussels machinery has acted normally, approving mergers, looking into state-aid cases, holding meetings and passing directives. The claim that an expanded EU of 27 countries cannot function without Lisbon is simply not true. Indeed, several academic studies have found that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than before. Besides, it is not always desirable to speed up decision-making: democracy usually operates by slowing it down. And many of the institutional reforms in the Lisbon treaty would not have taken effect until 2014 or 2017 in any case.

Nor is it right to treat the outcome as a problem for Ireland alone, still less to start talking of making the Irish vote again. As it happens, a case can be made that EU treaties are too complex to be readily susceptible to a simple yes/no vote. But 11 EU governments grandly promised such referendums on the constitution, and ten of them have been dishonest in pretending that Lisbon is a wholly different document. The Irish constitution requires a vote on any treaty that transfers any power at all to the European level. Even if one believes that referendums are not always desirable, it is both stupefyingly arrogant and anti-democratic to refuse to take no for an answer. Just what kind of democracy is being practised by the EU when the only outcome of a vote that is ever acceptable to Brussels is a yes (see article)?

A mess of pottage
It is not as if the Lisbon treaty is such a wonderful text. Besides being incomprehensible, it was—as so many EU treaties are—a messy compromise. And, like the constitution, it failed to meet the objectives laid down by an EU summit in Laeken almost seven years ago. The broad aims then were to clarify the EU's distribution of powers, with an eye to handing more of them back to national parliaments; and to simplify the rules so as to make the EU more transparent and bring it closer to its citizens. Nobody could pretend that Lisbon fulfils these goals.

This is not to say that everything in the treaty is bad. It would have improved the institutional machinery in Brussels, sorted out a muddle in foreign-policy making and brought in a fairer system of voting by EU members. But these are not the sorts of changes to set voters alight. And in truth, few EU governments or institutions are genuine enthusiasts for the treaty as such (Germany, which would gain voting weight, and the European Parliament, which would win extra powers, are two exceptions). Most simply wanted to get it out of the way and move on to issues more interesting than the institutional navel-gazing that has preoccupied the EU for too long.

After the Irish no, that is precisely what they should now do. The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that without Lisbon no further enlargement is possible. Each applicant needs an accession treaty that can include the institutional changes, such as new voting weights or extra parliamentary seats.

Needless to say, many of Europe's leaders will instead look for ingenious ways to ignore or reverse the Irish decision. But to come up with a few declarations or protocols and ask the Irish to vote again would not just be contemptuous of democracy: the turnout and margin of defeat also suggest that it might fail. Nor can Ireland, legally or morally, be excluded from the EU. Attempts by diehards to forge a core group of countries that builds a United States of Europe would also founder because, outside Belgium and Luxembourg, there is no longer a serious appetite for a federal Europe.

Ireland is a small country, to be sure. But the EU is an inter-governmental organisation that needs a consensus to proceed. It is bogus to claim that 1m voters are thwarting the will of 495m Europeans by blocking this treaty. Referendums would have been lost in many other countries had their people been given a say. Voters have thrice said no to this mess of pottage. It is time their verdict was respected.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=11580732
JPTF 22/06/2008

‘Ameaça checa de não ratificação paira sobre o Tratado de Lisboa‘ in BBC, 20 de Junho de 2008

EU leaders have admitted that the Czech Republic may not be able to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which has already been rejected by the Irish.

The declaration from their summit in Brussels notes that the Czech process is on hold due to legal difficulties.

But they said ratification would continue elsewhere, and ruled out renegotiation of the treaty.

But British PM Gordon Brown said the UK could not definitively ratify it until a court ruled on a legal challenge.

It followed a warning from a judge in the case that ratification should be delayed until the ruling was in.

The treaty passed through British parliament this week, but has still to complete formal ratification.

Mr Brown said the judge's intervention would not affect the process, which would not have been completed until after the court judgement anyway.

Bets off
The Brussels summit has been overshadowed by the Irish result, despite efforts to concentrate on food and fuel prices, and now the Czech threat hangs over the treaty.
"The idea is for the European Council to note that the Czech Republic cannot complete the ratification process until its constitutional court delivers its opinion," Reuters quoted an EU official as saying.

The Czech parliament's ratification has been suspended, after the Senate demanded that the constitutional court decide whether the treaty conformed with the constitution.

The Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said at the summit that he was not going to try to halt the ratification process in his country.

But he added: "I am not going to force MPs to back Lisbon and I wouldn't bet 100 crowns (£3, $6) on a Czech Yes."

The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, said after the Irish vote that it had killed off the treaty.

With growing opposition from Euro-sceptics, and key elections due in October, the future of the treaty in the Czech Republic looks uncertain, says the BBC's Oana Lungescu at the summit in Brussels.

'Not just for fun'
The issue has obstructed attempts to get a common position in Brussels - that ratification should continue, while the Irish government takes time to consider its next step.

But President Sarkozy said EU leaders had decided that: "The treaty ratification process should continue in all member states, that's the position now of the council."

"Ireland is a problem, but if we have a second or third problem then it's really going to get difficult," he added.

The treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states to take effect. Nineteen have approved it so far.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso urged respect for the Irish No vote but said he was confident all the countries would complete the ratification process.

He ruled out renegotiating the reform treaty.

"When a treaty is signed by 27 governments it's not just for fun," he said. "It's inconceivable that a government signs a treaty without the intention of ratifying it. It's a principle of international law."

Mr Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the European Union would not be able to expand further without ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, in what correspondents said appeared to be an attempt to lean on the Czechs.

On Thursday, the leaders agreed to scrap diplomatic sanctions against Cuba imposed in 2003.

Mr Barroso has also been pressing for the summit to focus on other issues such as fuel and food prices. After the first day of the summit, he announced:

-an emergency package for fisheries, amounting to 30,000 euros (£23,600) per vessel

-An extended programme to distribute food aid inside the EU to the most deprived people, increasing the aid from 300m euros (£236m) a year to 500m euros (£393m) a year

-A new EU fund to help the agricultural sector in developing countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7465448.stm
JPTF 2008/06/20

Cartoon de Luís Afonso in jornal Público, 18 de Junho de 2008

‘Checos resistem à pressão para ratificar o Tratado de Lisboa‘ in Reuters, 17 de Junho de 2008

The Czech Republic resisted pressure on Monday to quickly ratify the European Union's reform treaty after its defeat by Irish voters, and kept its options open on how to proceed with the charter.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was to meet the prime ministers of four central European EU states in Prague, has led calls for the ratification process to continue around Europe despite Ireland's "No" vote.

But the pressure has hit a snag in the Czech Republic, one of nine EU countries which have not ratified the pact. Its eurosceptic President Vaclav Klaus and some others in his ruling Civic Democratic Party said the Irish vote meant the treaty was dead and should be abandoned.

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, a Civic Democrat who signed the treaty for the Czech Republic, said there could be no hurrying a decision on how to go forward but it was clear the treaty would not enter force on January 1 next year as planned.

"We are relatively cautious in statements on the matter and want to sit down at the European Council, find a short term solution and a path forward," he told reporters.

"I do not think anybody has a completely clear idea in respect of continuing the ratification process," he said, adding the Irish vote had to be respected the same way the French and Dutch referendums which killed a previous treaty in 2005.

The Civic Democrats have sent the treaty to the Constitutional Court, expected to rule on it around September.

"We have the advantage that we do not have to decide if the ratification process will be interrupted or not, because we have already interrupted it de facto," Topolanek said.

European foreign ministers were meeting in Brussels on Monday to start picking up pieces of the Irish vote, and the overwhelming opinion was that the ratification should continue.

The proposed new treaty would allow more EU decisions to be taken by a majority vote rather than consensus and provide the bloc with a long-term president and a foreign policy chief to give it more clout on the global scene.

Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra, also a Civic Democrat, told Monday's daily Hospodarske Noviny the French should not push others.

"This pressure seems inappropriate to me," he said.

He said the treaty may not be passable in the upper house of parliament, where the Irish rejection bolstered many Civic Democrats who have never been big supporters of the pact.

France and Germany have pressed other countries to go ahead with ratification to keep up momentum during the French presidency of the EU in the second half of this year. The Czechs will hold the rotating presidency for the first half of 2009.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL161736120080616?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
JPTF 2008/06/17

O Tratado de Lisboa posto ‘fora de jogo‘ pela Irlanda in Geopolitics Central, 16 de Junho de 2008