‘Decisão absurda de escolher Obama ridiculariza o Prémio Nobel da Paz‘ in Times

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

Presidência do Conselho Europeu: Tratado de Lisboa abre a porta a um (ainda maior) domínio dos grandes países? in EU Observer

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has sided with smaller member states in trying to restrict the role of the proposed president of the European Council, a new post created by the Lisbon Treaty.

Addressing the European Parliament on Wednesday (7 October), Mr Barroso chastised MEPs for referring to the post as "president of Europe."

"I am sorry, there will not be a president of Europe. There will be, if we have Lisbon, the president of the European Council. It is important to understand that point because sometimes I think there are some ideas about certain derives institutionelles [institutional drifts]," he said.

Loosely defined in the treaty itself, talk about the nature of the president's role has become one of the main topics in Brussels in recent days, as national governments deliberate whether the post should go to a well-known personality from a big country or a more discreet politician.

The exact job description will be written by the first person holding the job, with ex British prime minister Tony Blair among the most-mentioned candidates for the post. It is widely agreed that a politician of Mr Blair's standing would take the post far beyond the largely administrative role foreseen in the treaty.

According to the treaty, which is still awaiting full ratification by all 27 member states, the president is supposed to chair the regular meetings of EU leaders - known as the European Council - and to drive forward their work.

Mr Barroso, who himself enjoys attending international summits on behalf of the EU, has a personal stake in the issue.

A powerful council president would upset the power balance in the EU and would likely see Mr Barroso relegated to a more much Brussels-based role.

The commission president has no formal powers in appointing the European Council president but he warned: "The European Commission will not accept the idea that the president of European Council is the president of Europe."

Mr Barroso's remarks came shortly after a leaked paper on the new Lisbon Treaty posts by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg underlined the importance of maintaining the "institutional balance" of the union. The paper has been interpreted in some quarters as an anti-Blair move.

Poland has also prepared a document on the role of the president of the European Council. Earlier this week, Polish Europe minister Mikolaj Dowgielewicz indicated to EUobserver the limited role that Warsaw foresees for the new president.

"We have to recognise that the Polish minister of finance or agriculture will only take instructions from his prime minister. He will not take instructions from the president of the council," he said.

Some member states, such as France, have indicated they want to create a major player with the presidential job by appointing someone who can open doors in the US and China and who can give the EU some gravitas on the world stage.

Mr Blair's is not the only name that has been put forward in connection to the job. Other possible contenders mooted include Dutch leader Jan-Peter Balkenende; Luxembourg leader Jean-Claude Juncker and Felipe Gonzalez, a former Spanish prime minister.

http://euobserver.com/9/28799?print=1

‘Sim‘ na Irlanda ao Tratado de Lisboa: resultado de acordo com a única ‘escolha‘ aceitável... nos pequenos países

‘UE processa Portugal por défice excessivo‘ in Expresso

Bruxelas irá fazer uma série de recomendações, colocar Lisboa sob "vigilância orçamental" e avançar com um calendário para sair da situação de desequilíbrio das contas superior a 3% do PIB (défice excessivo), seguindo as regras que estão estipuladas no Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento da União Europeia.

O período que será dado para corrigir o "défice excessivo" português será negociado com as autoridades nacionais. Os prazos já aplicados a outros Estados-membros variam entre 2010, para a Grécia, e 2013/14 para a Irlanda e Reino Unido.

Em Novembro adoptaremos propostas de correcção do défice para os oito países da zona euro que, segundo as previsões, vão violar o défice este ano", declarou no início de Junho o comissário europeu dos Assuntos Económicos e Monetários, Joaquin Almunia.

Ao todo, catorze dos 27 países da União Europeia, incluindo Portugal, vão em 2009 exceder o limite autorizado por Bruxelas para o défice.

Todos os Estados-membros comunicam (reportam) à Comissão Europeia e ao Eurostat (Abril e Outubro) o estado das suas contas públicas (últimos números do ano anterior e previsão para o corrente ano).

Em ano de crise económica, praticamente todos os países no espaço UE esperam apresentar défices orçamentais, à excepção da Bulgária, que conta com um excedente das suas contas públicas em 1,5% do PIB (ao nível do reportado no ano anterior).

O governo português já avisou que o seu défice deverá chegar este ano aos 5,9% do PIB, agravando-se assim o valor face aos 2,6% estimados pelo Executivo de José Sócrates para 2008.

Os países que esperam os maiores saldos negativos são, no entanto, o Reino Unido e a Irlanda, com os governos a esperarem défices de 12,6 e 10,7% do PIB, respectivamente, depois de ambos terem, em 2008, reportado uma estimativa de 7,1% do PIB.

Acima dos 3% ficam ainda os défices da Letónia (8,5%), Espanha (5,8%), França (5,6%), Roménia (5,1%, Polónia (4,6%), República Checa (3,9%), Grécia, Itália e Eslovénia (3,7%), Bélgica (3,4%) e Holanda (3,3%).

De acordo com os dados reportados em Abril pelos vários governos ao Eurostat, em 2008 já quebraram a regra dos três por cento o Reino Unido e a Irlanda, ambos com 7,1%, a Roménia (5,4%), a Grécia (5%), Malta (4,7%), a Letónia (4%), a Polónia (3,9%), a Espanha (3,8%), a Hungria e a França (3,4%) e a Lituânia (3,2%).

O executivo comunitário já iniciou em Fevereiro passado procedimentos por défice excessivo contra seis Estados-membros da União Europeia: Espanha, França, Grécia, Irlanda, Malta e Letónia que tiveram em 2008 um défice orçamental superior ao valor de referência permitido pelo Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento.

http://clix.expresso.pt/ue-processa-portugal-por-defice-excessivo=f538274

Referendo na Irlanda: ‘Não somos carneiros‘ (cartoon de Chapatte in Le Temps)

‘OCDE prevê que o comércio mundial se contraia 18% este ano‘ in Público

O comércio mundial vai contrair-se 18 por cento este ano e “recuperar ligeiramente” no próximo ano, indicam as últimas projecções da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico (OCDE).

No documento que analisa as principais tendências e desafios na Europa nos próximos anos, a OCDE considera que “as mais recentes projecções indicam um declínio do comércio mundial de 18 por cento em 2009, a maior queda em décadas, e uma recuperação ligeira em 2010”.

A contracção do comércio e as consequências internas em termos de combate ao comércio livre estão entre as preocupações da OCDE, que afirma que um dos principais desafios da União Europeia e dos Governos dos Estados-membros é a resistência à pressão para a adopção de medidas proteccionistas.

[A queda no comércio mundial] “está a pôr pressão em muitos países para aumentarem a protecção às empresas nacionais, o que implica que os próximos anos são um desafio à implementação de políticas de comércio global”.

Nas recomendações que os peritos da organização sedeada em Paris deixam aos Governos europeus e à Comissão Europeia, encontram-se o “aprofundamento da liberalização do comércio multilateral” e o apoio ao sucesso das negociações de Doha – através de uma “redução dos subsídios internos, que distorcem a concorrência”, e da “eliminação dos subsídios à exportação”).

http://economia.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1401571&idCanal=57

‘Ossétia do Sul: onde fica isso?‘ cartoon de Chapatte in Le Temps

‘Apoio ao Tratado de Lisboa em queda na Irlanda‘ in EU Observer

With just a month to go until Ireland's second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a poll has shown that 46 percent support a yes vote, down eight points since May.

Published by the Irish Times, the TNS mrbi poll shows a rise of one point in those saying they plan to vote No to 29 percent with the Don't Knows registering at 25 percent, up seven points in comparison to a pre-summer survey.

The newspaper notes that most of the people who have left the Yes side have entered the Don't Know category rather than crossed to the No camp.

The drop in support for the treaty is reminiscent of the trend in the weeks ahead of the first referendum which resulted in a No in June last year. It is set to spur the government to place more focus on a strong and coherent campaign.

However, prime minister Brian Cowen's Fianna Fail party, grappling with the devastating effects of the economic crisis, has reached an historic low in polls, garnering just 17 percent support in another poll by the Irish Times.

The survey indicates that 85 percent are dissatisfied with the government's performance while 11 percent approve it.

Dan Boyle, chairman of the Green Party, the junior governing party, said that it will be a "challenge" for the government to survive until January, with general elections only due in 2012.

For his part, Mr Cowen has met with the main opposition parties to work out how to make the most effective Yes campaign ahead of the 2 October poll.

He has also tried to persuade to voters to rise above their feelings for the government and concentrate on the issue at hand in the referendum.

"I don't believe this is about the future of this government or the future of personalities, it's about the future of the country. This is not politics as usual. It goes beyond any issues of party, organisation or locality. It is about our country's future," said the prime minister on Wednesday (2 September).

Economic crisis

However, Irish citizens have been shocked by the gravity of the economic crisis and the austerity measures proposed by the government to tackle it. In addition, much of the discussion in recent days has concerned the government's controversial plans to set up a 'bad bank', or National Asset Management Agency, to swallow toxic assets but the plan is viewed with scepticism by the public.

The Irish vote is hugely anticipated in Brussels, where there is widespread hope that the Lisbon Treaty will be passed and a backlog of decisions and discussions can then take place in light of the result.

Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland must also complete ratification of the Treaty, which introduces a powerful EU foreign policy chief, a president of the European Council and gives greater powers to the European Parliament.

http://euobserver.com/9/28616?print=1
JPTF 7/09/2009

Leituras: Cox & Forum, Black & White World IV

Cartoon: o Japão sai da recessão

Leituras: ‘A surpreendente recuperação da Ásia‘ in The Economist

‘O jogo duplo da Turquia na segurança energética da UE‘ in EUObserver

Turkey has agreed to grant access to Russia's South Stream gas pipeline through its part of the Black Sea, in a move which could hurt the prospects of an EU-backed project to reduce Russian energy dependency.

The Turkish deal is a major breakthrough for the Russian pipeline, which has to cross the maritime economic areas of either Turkey or Ukraine, but with Ukraine very unlikely to give consent.

At a signing ceremony in Ankara on Thursday (6 August), Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, insisted that South Stream is not a rival to the EU-backed Nabucco pipeline project.

"Even with the construction of South Stream, Nabucco will not be closed," Mr Putin said at a news conference. "The more infrastructure projects, the better, because that will create reliability and stability of energy supply to Europe."

The European Commission also officially rejects the idea the two projects are in competition.

"We consider [South Stream] a complementary initiative to our ongoing Nabucco efforts," commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said at a press briefing in Brussels.

South Stream is designed to bring more Russian gas under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and Italy. Nabucco is to bring gas from Caspian Sea area countries to Europe via Turkey, bypassing Russia.

Experts warn that if South Stream is built the EU will be forced to buy Caspian gas at a much higher price, however.

"I argue that if South Stream is built, Nabucco will not be, at least not for Caspian gas," Zeyno Baran, a Turkish-American energy expert with the Washington-based Hudson Institute, told Euobserver.

"If South Stream is built, all that Caspian gas is going to pour into it. Nabucco is important not only for diversifying Europe's needs, but it's also freeing the Central Asian countries and the Caucasian countries from the hold of Russia. Now with this, Turkey sent a signal, whether it to wanted or not, that it doesn't really care about those countries, it just cares about becoming a gas hub."

Turkey just last month signed a legal framework agreement for Nabucco, raising hopes of the country's strategic backing of EU energy security interests.

"Europeans need to really understand what's going on in Turkey, how close it has gotten to Russia as opposed to Europe and the US," Ms Baran said.

In terms of geopolitical impact, South Stream would reduce the importance of Ukraine's transit pipeline network, which currently ships 80 percent of Russian gas to the EU.

The new situation would make it easier for Moscow to exert political pressure on Kiev by raising the price of its gas exports to Ukraine without the fear of a potential knock-on effect on its EU customers.

If South Stream is built before Nabucco, it could also see Azerbaijan sell its extra gas into the Russian pipeline, damaging prospects for Georgia's independence.

Georgia currently buys all its gas from Azerbaijan, with the country being forced to go back to Russian suppliers if its Azeri channels were blocked.

In a parallel development highlighting Russia's attitude to the energy sector, Mr Putin on Thursday also signed an executive order definitively rejecting the country's participation in the Energy Charter Treaty.

The 1991 multilateral agreement is designed to help EU companies invest in Russian energy firms and to grant access to Russia's vast pipeline system, effectively breaking its monopoly on Caspian zone exports.

http://euobserver.com/9/28530?print=1

JPTF 2009/08/10

Leituras: ‘Networks and Netwars. The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy‘ de John Arquilla e David Ronfeldt

Iraque: a ciberguerra que não chegou a ser

por John Markoff e Tom Shanker

It would have been the most far-reaching case of computer sabotage in history. In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government’s financial system before the United States invaded Iraq. He would have no money for war supplies. No money to pay troops.

“We knew we could pull it off — we had the tools,” said one senior official who worked at the Pentagon when the highly classified plan was developed.

But the attack never got the green light. Bush administration officials worried that the effects would not be limited to Iraq but would instead create worldwide financial havoc, spreading across the Middle East to Europe and perhaps to the United States.

Fears of such collateral damage are at the heart of the debate as the Obama administration and its Pentagon leadership struggle to develop rules and tactics for carrying out attacks in cyberspace.

While the Bush administration seriously studied computer-network attacks, the Obama administration is the first to elevate cybersecurity — both defending American computer networks and attacking those of adversaries — to the level of a White House director, whose appointment is expected in coming weeks.

But senior White House officials remain so concerned about the risks of unintended harm to civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure in an attack on computer networks that they decline any official comment on the topic. And senior Defense Department officials and military officers directly involved in planning for the Pentagon’s new “cybercommand” acknowledge that the risk of collateral damage is one of their chief concerns.

“We are deeply concerned about the second- and third-order effects of certain types of computer network operations, as well as about laws of war that require attacks be proportional to the threat,” said one senior officer.

This officer, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the work, also acknowledged that these concerns had restrained the military from carrying out a number of proposed missions. “In some ways, we are self-deterred today because we really haven’t answered that yet in the world of cyber,” the officer said.

In interviews over recent weeks, a number of current and retired White House officials, Pentagon civilians and military officers disclosed details of classified missions — some only considered and some put into action — that illustrate why this issue is so difficult.

Although the digital attack on Iraq’s financial system was not carried out, the American military and its partners in the intelligence agencies did receive approval to cripple Iraq’s military and government communications systems in the early hours of the war in 2003. And that attack did produce collateral damage.

Besides blowing up cellphone towers and communications grids, the offensive included electronic jamming and digital attacks against Iraq’s telephone networks. American officials also contacted international communications companies that provided satellite phone and cellphone coverage to Iraq to alert them to possible jamming and to ask their assistance in turning off certain channels.

Officials now acknowledge that the communications offensive temporarily disrupted telephone service in countries around Iraq that shared its cellphone and satellite telephone systems. That limited damage was deemed acceptable by the Bush administration.

Another such event took place in the late 1990s, according to a former military researcher. The American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days.

These missions, which remain highly classified, are being scrutinized today as the Obama administration and the Pentagon move into new arenas of cyberoperations. Few details have been reported previously; mention of the proposal for a digital offensive against Iraq’s financial and banking systems appeared with little notice on Newsmax.com, a news Web site, in 2003.

The government concerns evoke those at the dawn of the nuclear era, when questions of military effectiveness, legality and morality were raised about radiation spreading to civilians far beyond any zone of combat.

“If you don’t know the consequences of a counterstrike against innocent third parties, it makes it very difficult to authorize one,” said James Lewis, a cyberwarfare specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

But some military strategists argue that these uncertainties have led to excess caution on the part of Pentagon planners.

“Policy makers are tremendously sensitive to collateral damage by virtual weapons, but not nearly sensitive enough to damage by kinetic” — conventional — “weapons,” said John Arquilla, an expert in military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The cyberwarriors are held back by extremely restrictive rules of engagement.”

Despite analogies that have been drawn between biological weapons and cyberweapons, Mr. Arquilla argues that “cyberweapons are disruptive and not destructive.”

That view is challenged by some legal and technical experts.

“It’s virtually certain that there will be unintended consequences,” said Herbert Lin, a senior scientist at the National Research Council and author of a recent report on offensive cyberwarfare. “If you don’t know what a computer you attack is doing, you could do something bad.”

Mark Seiden, a Silicon Valley computer security specialist who was a co-author of the National Research Council report, said, “The chances are very high that you will inevitably hit civilian targets — the worst-case scenario is taking out a hospital which is sharing a network with some other agency.”

And while such attacks are unlikely to leave smoking craters, electronic attacks on communications networks and data centers could have broader, life-threatening consequences where power grids and critical infrastructure like water treatment plants are increasingly controlled by computer networks.

Over the centuries, rules governing combat have been drawn together in customary practice as well as official legal documents, like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. These laws govern when it is legitimate to go to war, and set rules for how any conflict may be waged.

Two traditional military limits now are being applied to cyberwar: proportionality, which is a rule that, in layman’s terms, argues that if you slap me, I cannot blow up your house; and collateral damage, which requires militaries to limit civilian deaths and injuries.

“Cyberwar is problematic from the point of view of the laws of war,” said Jack L. Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School. “The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=irak%20war&st=cse

JPTF 2009/08/03

Leituras: ‘Os contra-reaccionários‘ de Pierre-André Taguieff

Islândia: após o colapso financeiro a candidatura à UE...

‘A Indonésia acorda para o terror‘ in Asia Times

por Gary LaMoshi

Experts have written the obituary of extremist violence in Indonesia, but the violent extremists keep refusing to read the script. Friday morning's deadly twin bombings of Western-branded hotels in Jakarta are proof that complacency in the fight against terrorism in Indonesia remains misplaced.

Restaurant areas at the JW Marriott, site of a car bombing in 2003, and Ritz Carlton were hit by suicide bombers at breakfast time, according to Indonesian police, with the death toll climbing to nine in the first hours after the attacks. Dozens were injured, and hundreds of guests evacuated.

The bombings spoil a seemingly triumphant moment for Indonesia. After veering toward chaos a decade ago, the country with the world's largest Muslim population had become the world's third largest democracy. "This is a blow to us," presidential spokesperson Dino Patti Djalal said in a broadcast interview.

Spare drill, spoil fill
The attacks also highlight shortcomings in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's nuanced approach to fighting radicalism and violence.

The Friday morning explosions shattered a lull in terror attacks in Indonesia that lasted nearly four years. They came a week after a successful, peaceful election that appears to have given Yudhoyono, a moderate former general with a "speak softly but carry a big stick" reputation, a second term by a landslide margin. The attacks hit after many Western governments lifted their travel restrictions on Indonesia, boosting the tourism trade to record levels.

Things were considered so safe that English Premier League football champions Manchester United were due to stay at the Ritz Carlton from Saturday during a four-day visit to Jakarta, including a scheduled match on Monday against an Indonesian all-star team. A few hours after the bombing, Manchester United announced it would cancel that leg of its Asian tour.

Indonesia has been the target of terrorism dating back to Christmas Eve 2000, when churches were bombed across the archipelago. The attacks were part of widespread Christian-Muslim clashes with shadowy military backing, aimed at undermining reformist president Abdurrahman Wahid. He was ousted in July 2001, but the military's Frankenstein monster took on a life of its own, gaining strength from anti-Western sentiment in the wake of the US-led wars in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

In October 2002, bombs destroyed a pair of popular nightclubs in Bali, accompanied by a calling card blast at the US Consular Agency on the popular resort island. The Marriott attack in August 2003 killed 12. In September 2004, a car bomb targeted the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, leaving nine dead. In October 2005, suicide bombers hit a pair of popular restaurants in Bali.

Back to the future
The attacks on Bali and beyond were attributed to Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a Muslim extremist group that seeks to create a caliphate linking Muslim areas across Southeast Asia. JI has alleged links to al-Qaeda, but operates independently.

Experts say Friday's attacks bear the hallmarks of JI, including coordinated attacks on multiple targets frequented by Westerners. But, after many arrests of its top leadership, the group has reportedly splintered into factions, not all retaining the JI name. So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

After the second Bali bombings, the first confirmed suicide bombings in Indonesia, Yudhoyono rallied Muslim clerics and other religious leaders to denounce sectarian violence and extremism, declaring unequivocally that Indonesia should not be a battleground for jihad. That high-profile declaration, and revulsion at suicide bomber videos, helped turn the tide of public opinion against extremist violence. The momentum held seemingly until Friday morning.

But Yudhoyono's administration has walked a fine line in fighting homegrown terrorism, balancing ties with the West against radical elements at home. It has accepted support from the Australian and US governments, helping Indonesian police crack down on terrorists. Much of the JI leadership has been arrested, and its top bombing mastermind Azahari Husin, a Malaysian with a PhD from Britain, was killed in a 2006 raid. "We've had a number of preventive successes in Sumatra, in Java, and other places," presidential spokesman Djalal said. "We always knew there are terrorist cells out there. You can never fully eradicate them."

Yudhoyono even welcomed George W Bush for a very unpopular visit in 2006 that avoided Jakarta and entailed a virtual lockdown (and cell phone blackout) around the suburban presidential palace in Bogor. The inauguration of US President Barack Obama, who spent part of his childhood living in Jakarta and opposed the war in Iraq, promises even closer ties between the US and Indonesian governments and has already created a great deal of grassroots warmth toward the US.

Embracing extremists
On the other hand, Yudhoyono's political coalition includes extremist Islamic parties that provide a home for sentiments that feed radicalism. He's largely ignored local governments that enact radical-inspired laws, such as dress codes and bans on females traveling alone after dark, that contradict national laws.

Yudhoyono has stoked radical fires by embracing the Palestinian cause as Indonesia's own, in the name of Muslim solidarity. By linking his good name to these fringe elements, Yudhoyono gives legitimacy to parties that advocate imposing sharia law across the archipelago, whose members preach and publish violent anti-Western Islamist screeds.

Indonesia's violence isn't all attributable to Islamic radicals. Despite democratic trappings, there's widespread feeling of powerlessness since government remains largely unresponsive while the elite and connected act with impunity. Many feel Yudhoyono's regime hasn't changed things enough in that regard. For example, it has still failed to convict the masterminds of the murder of human rights activist Munir Said Thalib, poisoned aboard a flight on national flag carrier Garuda in September 2004.

Yudhoyono's current cabinet includes Aburizal Bakrie as Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, whose family business has failed to stop the mudflow it caused in Sidoarjo, East Java, in 2006 and adequately compensate the thousands of displaced victims. The company was allowed to sell the affiliate to an offshore company to avoid responsibility for the damage.

Yudhoyono's two faces embody a national personality that prefers accommodation to confrontation. His approach had seemed to lower the political and social temperature in Indonesia, but Friday's bombings show it's failed to extinguish the embers of radical violence.

With his popularity proven by his win at the polls, Yudhoyono must summon the courage to root out elements that aid and abet terrorism. It's a quality called leadership and Indonesia needs it at this dark moment.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KG18Ae01.html
JPTF 2009/07/19

‘No Xinjiang, o separatismo não passará!‘ in Courrier International

Les incidents qui se sont produits, le 26 juin, dans l’usine de jouets Xuri de Shaoguan (province du Guangdong) étaient au départ une simple bagarre générale [un ouvrier han a été arrêté pour diffusion de fausse rumeur. Il avait accusé sur Internet des ouvriers ouïgours d’avoir violé une ouvrière han. Les affrontements qui ont suivi ont fait deux morts parmi les Ouïgours]. Mais cette affaire a été montée en épingle par des personnes aux noirs desseins à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du pays, entraînant les graves violences du 5 juillet. Animés de sinistres intentions, ces individus ont profité de l’occasion pour fomenter des troubles à visées séparatistes.

Le Congrès ouïgour mondial [fédération des organisations ouïgoures en exil installée à Munich] dirigé par Rebiya Kadeer – qui ne pense qu’à provoquer de graves incidents – ne s’est jamais résigné à admettre le développement prospère et stable du Xinjiang ni la bonne entente entre les peuples qui y règne. A intervalles réguliers, cette organisation projette des attentats ou des attaques terroristes. Si ces incidents ne s’étaient pas produits le 5 juillet, ils auraient eu lieu un autre jour, et si l’affaire du 26 juin n’avait pas joué le rôle de déclencheur, une autre affaire aurait tout aussi bien servi de prétexte. Cette organisation a plus d’un tour dans son sac pour déformer la réalité, induire en erreur la population, attiser sa colère et répandre la haine entre les différentes nationalités.

Quand des incidents éclatent, elle prétend ne pas y être mêlée et rejette la faute sur le gouvernement chinois. Face à l’Occident, elle se présente toujours comme un “groupe non violent, sans aucun lien avec le terrorisme”. En mars 2008, après l’attentat manqué contre un vol de la compagnie Southern Airlines par des activistes de l’indépendantisme du Turkestan oriental [Xinjiang], le porte-parole du Congrès ouïgour mondial, Dilixiati, avait tout de suite crié au complot de la part du pouvoir chinois et, le 6 juillet dernier, il a fait le même genre de déclarations. Pour faire croire que la Chine pratique une politique discriminatoire envers les minorités, ils appellent blanc ce qui est noir et font passer le vrai pour le faux. Les larges déplacements de main-d’œuvre sont un phénomène très répandu et normal dans la Chine actuelle, mais ils considèrent comme anormal que des minorités aillent travailler dans les régions de l’intérieur du pays et dénoncent des “déplacements forcés”.

S’ils ont attisé par leurs manigances les incidents du 5 juillet, c’est dans le but de semer la discorde et la haine entre les peuples pour créer de nouveaux troubles. Ils veulent aussi susciter l’indignation chez les gens qui ont une mauvaise approche de la réalité afin de mettre de l’huile sur le feu. Les incidents du 5 juillet ne correspondent pas à un problème entre nationalités, même si, à l’extérieur de nos frontières, des forces séparatistes espèrent qu’il en découlera des antagonismes entre les peuples. Ces incidents ont mis à mal les intérêts et le bien-être de la population, une situation dont toutes les personnes souhaitant l’entente entre les peuples et l’harmonie dans la société ne veulent pas ! Face à ces violences, les différentes composantes ethniques de la population se doivent de conserver leur calme, de se serrer les coudes en nourrissant une haine implacable contre l’ennemi, pour réduire à néant les complots des forces séparatistes situées par-delà des frontières.

L’unité de la patrie, la concorde entre les peuples, la stabilité de la société, sont appelées de leurs vœux par toutes les nationalités de Chine, y compris nos concitoyens du Xinjiang. C’est l’intérêt commun de toutes les nationalités chinoises, lesquelles ne sauraient tolérer des pratiques à visée séparatiste ou cherchant à instaurer le désordre. Résoudre les conflits dans le cadre de la Constitution et des lois est le devoir sacré du gouvernement et du Parti, dont l’action est sûre d’obtenir le soutien et l’appui de l’ensemble des masses populaires et des cadres du Parti. Aucun complot séparatiste ne saurait triompher !

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2009/07/13/au-xinjiang-le-separatisme-ne-passera-pas

JPTF 2009/07/14

‘Al-Qaeda ameaça interesses chineses em África em resposta à repressão contra os uigures de Xinjiang‘ in Público

Pela primeira vez, a Al-Qaeda ameaçou interesses chineses. É uma forma de retaliação pelas mortes de muçulmanos uigures na província de Xinjiang, no Noroeste da China. E pode ser também um sintoma do papel internacional que Pequim tem vindo a desempenhar.

A célula do grupo de Osama bin Laden no Norte de África - a Al-Qaeda no Magrebe Islâmico (AQIM, com base na Argélia) - lançou um grito de vingança, pedindo um ataque aos interesses chineses no Norte do continente africano, segundo informou a Stirling Assynt, uma rede de análise de informações secretas e terrorismo com sede em Londres.

Não são de esperar ataques dentro da própria China, mas "alguma coisa irá acontecer no Norte de África... Se eu fosse um chinês a viver na Argélia ou no Iémen, estaria realmente preocupado", comentou ao PÚBLICO por telefone Justin Crump, chefe da equipa de terrorismo da Stirling Assynt.

"Há cerca de 50 mil chineses a viver na Argélia e este será o alvo principal, porque os indivíduos são sempre os alvos mais fáceis", adiantou. Outro alvo possível é o dos projectos, sobretudo de infra-estruturas, que a China está a desenvolver. Os países da África subsariana, como Angola, por exemplo, "não estarão em risco".

Para Crump, a ameaça "não é surpreendente", embora a China "não faça parte da estratégia da Al-Qaeda". O facto de os distúrbios, que duram há mais de uma semana, terem acontecido em Xingiang - uma região autónoma onde os uigures formam o maior grupo étnico - não é motivo para, à partida, colocar Pequim debaixo da ameaça islâmica. "Há uma relação muito, muito baixa entre Xinjiang e a Al-Qaeda". Ou seja, "temos informações de que meia dúzia de uigures receberam treino no Paquistão ou no Afeganistão".

E é precisamente nestes países onde o grupo terrorista está a investir as suas energias e os seus recursos, que vão sendo mais escassos, sobretudo desde que os Estados Unidos têm um novo Presidente. "A eleição de [Barack] Obama está a custar apoios."

O analista Kerry Brown, da Chatham House, não conhecia a ameaça dos islamistas, mas afirmou ao PÚBLICO, também por telefone, que este será "um sinal de que a China se está a tornar num actor mais importante na cena internacional. E também num alvo válido para um ataque".

O gesto do AQIM foi recebido pelo Governo chinês também com um aviso: serão tomadas todas as medidas para que a ameaça não passe à prática. "Vamos seguir de perto a situação e fazer esforços conjuntos com os paí-ses envolvidos para tomar todas as medidas necessárias para garantir a segurança das instituições e cidadãos chineses no estrangeiro", afirmou numa conferência de imprensa o porta-voz do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Qin Gang.

Oportunismo do AQIM

A ameaça poderá ter outras consequências para além de ataques na Argélia ou no Iémen. "O Governo [chinês] diz com veemência que em Xinjiang há elementos ligados a grupos terroristas internacionais. O que a Al-Qaeda fez agora foi dar-lhe bases para esse argumento", continua Kerry Brown.

Por outro lado, "a China tem tido um low profile. Isto pode mudar essa posição, e significa que o Governo terá mais interesse em trabalhar com outros parceiros internacionais" na luta contra o terrorismo.

O investigador da Stirling Assynt adianta ao PÚBLICO que "há um certo oportunismo" na atitude do AQIM, que será um "franchising regional da Al-Qaeda": está a aproveitar "os ressentimentos que existem em Xinjiang" em relação à governação chinesa. E, "apesar de a China não fazer parte dos mais altos interesses da Al-Qaeda, o grupo também não se pode dar ao luxo de não dizer uma palavra", quando cidadãos muçulmanos estão a ser vítimas de uma repressão.

Os distúrbios começaram no dia 2 de Julho em Urumqi, a capital da região, quando milhares de uigures foram para a rua exigir uma investigação à morte de dois membros da sua etnia em Guangdong, no Sul da China. Confrontos entre uigures e chineses han (largamente maioritários no resto do país) levaram à morte de pelo menos 186 pessoas e a 1680 feridos.

http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1391824&idCanal=11
JPTF 2009/07/15