Niall Ferguson: ‘uma crise grega está a chegar à América‘ in Financial Times

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies. For this is more than just a Mediterranean problem with a farmyard acronym. It is a fiscal crisis of the western world. Its ramifications are far more profound than most investors currently appreciate.

There is of course a distinctive feature to the eurozone crisis. Because of the way the European Monetary Union was designed, there is in fact no mechanism for a bail-out of the Greek government by the European Union, other member states or the European Central Bank (articles 123 and 125 of the Lisbon treaty). True, Article 122 may be invoked by the European Council to assist a member state that is “seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control”, but at this point nobody wants to pretend that Greece’s yawning deficit was an act of God. Nor is there a way for Greece to devalue its currency, as it would have done in the pre-EMU days of the drachma. There is not even a mechanism for Greece to leave the eurozone.

That leaves just three possibilities: one of the most excruciating fiscal squeezes in modern European history – reducing the deficit from 13 per cent to 3 per cent of gross domestic product within just three years; outright default on all or part of the Greek government’s debt; or (most likely, as signalled by German officials on Wednesday) some kind of bail-out led by Berlin. Because none of these options is very appealing, and because any decision about Greece will have implications for Portugal, Spain and possibly others, it may take much horse-trading before one can be reached.

Yet the idiosyncrasies of the eurozone should not distract us from the general nature of the fiscal crisis that is now afflicting most western economies. Call it the fractal geometry of debt: the problem is essentially the same from Iceland to Ireland to Britain to the US. It just comes in widely differing sizes.

What we in the western world are about to learn is that there is no such thing as a Keynesian free lunch. Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect

For the world’s biggest economy, the US, the day of reckoning still seems reassuringly remote. The worse things get in the eurozone, the more the US dollar rallies as nervous investors park their cash in the “safe haven” of American government debt. This effect may persist for some months, just as the dollar and Treasuries rallied in the depths of the banking panic in late 2008.

Yet even a casual look at the fiscal position of the federal government (not to mention the states) makes a nonsense of the phrase “safe haven”. US government debt is a safe haven the way Pearl Harbor was a safe haven in 1941.

Even according to the White House’s new budget projections, the gross federal debt in public hands will exceed 100 per cent of GDP in just two years’ time. This year, like last year, the federal deficit will be around 10 per cent of GDP. The long-run projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the US will never again run a balanced budget. That’s right, never.

The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

Explosions of public debt hurt economies in the following way, as numerous empirical studies have shown. By raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, they push up real interest rates. Higher real rates, in turn, act as drag on growth, especially when the private sector is also heavily indebted – as is the case in most western economies, not least the US.

Although the US household savings rate has risen since the Great Recession began, it has not risen enough to absorb a trillion dollars of net Treasury issuance a year. Only two things have thus far stood between the US and higher bond yields: purchases of Treasuries (and mortgage-backed securities, which many sellers essentially swapped for Treasuries) by the Federal Reserve and reserve accumulation by the Chinese monetary authorities.

But now the Fed is phasing out such purchases and is expected to wind up quantitative easing. Meanwhile, the Chinese have sharply reduced their purchases of Treasuries from around 47 per cent of new issuance in 2006 to 20 per cent in 2008 to an estimated 5 per cent last year. Small wonder Morgan Stanley assumes that 10-year yields will rise from around 3.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent this year. On a gross federal debt fast approaching $1,500bn, that implies up to $300bn of extra interest payments – and you get up there pretty quickly with the average maturity of the debt now below 50 months.

The Obama administration’s new budget blithely assumes real GDP growth of 3.6 per cent over the next five years, with inflation averaging 1.4 per cent. But with rising real rates, growth might well be lower. Under those circumstances, interest payments could soar as a share of federal revenue – from a tenth to a fifth to a quarter.

Last week Moody’s Investors Service warned that the triple A credit rating of the US should not be taken for granted. That warning recalls Larry Summers’ killer question (posed before he returned to government): “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power?”

On reflection, it is appropriate that the fiscal crisis of the west has begun in Greece, the birthplace of western civilization. Soon it will cross the channel to Britain. But the key question is when that crisis will reach the last bastion of western power, on the other side of the Atlantic.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df-bf44-00144feab49a.html

‘A Ucrânia está num limbo pós-eleitoral‘ in EU Observer

Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is continuing to keep her silence two days after her apparent defeat in presidential elections, as the clock slowly ticks to another potential gas crisis in Europe.

Ms Tymoshenko on Tuesday (9 February) again declined to make any public statement on the vote, which saw her lose to rival candidate Viktor Yanukovych by a narrow margin, according to the Central Election Commission.

The ODIHR (an international monitoring mission), the EU, the US and Russia have all said the election was free and fair.

Rumblings from Ms Tymoshenko's circle indicate that Ukraine's iron lady plans to accuse Mr Yanukovych of fraud in the courts: "Yesterday evening we took the decision to challenge the legality of the voting process," Elena Shustik, the deputy head of Ms Tymoshenko's party, the BYuT, said on Tuesday.

And her public relations machine continues to work as if the election was still in full swing.

"If Yanukovych becomes president, you will have the photograph of a convicted criminal in most school classrooms and police stations across the country," Neil Pattle, from Ms Tymoshenko's UK-based PR firm, Ridge Consult, told EUobserver.

Other BYuT insiders, such as MP Nikola Tomenko, are saying she should step down and go into opposition, however. Rumours are even doing the rounds that the outgoing president, Viktor Yushchenko, will be reincarnated as the new prime minister in a deal with Mr Yanukovych.

Meanwhile, a wintry Kiev is going about its business as normal on Wednesday, with no protesters visible or expected at Independence Square, the scene of Mr Yushchenko's peaceful revolution in 2004.

Oleksandr Sushko, the director of the Institute of Euro-Atlantic Co-operation in the Ukrainian capital, said that the current political 'crisis' is no worse than the several others seen in the country over the past five years.

But it does come at a dangerous time for its economy and its capacity to keep Russian gas flowing to EU states through transit pipelines.

"It's not a total political crisis. The state institutions are functioning. But we do have a budget crisis: We have a huge deficit, which is comparable to the situation in Greece," Mr Sushko told this website.

Bohdan Sokolovsky, President Yushchenko's top aide on energy, spelled out the potential consequences for EU gas supplies if Ukraine cannot balance its books: "The situation at Naftogaz [Ukraine's gas distribution company] is very negative. If it defaults, it means Gazprom [Russian gas supply firm] could not pump gas to Europe," he said.

"Naftogaz can pay Gazprom in March but in April it does not have the money. And it cannot get credit from international institutions or from Ukrainian banks."

http://euobserver.com/9/29444

Cartoon ‘A crise e a solidariedade na zona euro‘

‘A Rússia aprovou nova doutrina nuclear que permite ataques preventivos‘ in ABC

El presidente ruso, Dimitri Medvedev, ha aprobado la nueva doctrina militar de Rusia, que permite realizar ataques nucleares preventivos contra agresores potenciales, anunció este viernes la secretaria de prensa del Kremlin, Natalia Timakova.

"El presidente ha informado este viernes a los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad de Rusia de que ha aprobado dos documentos: la doctrina militar y los fundamentos de la política estatal sobre disuasión nuclear hasta 2020", precisó Timakova, citada por la agencia de noticias RIA Novosti.

Según fuentes oficiales rusas, las amenazas y los desafíos reales que afronta el país han motivado los cambios en la doctrina militar.

La tríada nuclear de Rusia está compuesta por sistemas de misiles balísticos, submarinos nucleares equipados con misiles balísticos y bombarderos estratégicos con bombas atómicas y misiles de crucero capaces de llevar cabezas nucleares. En virtud de la nueva doctrina, Rusia seguirá desarrollando y modernizando esta tríada, aumentando su capacidad para superar los sistemas antimisiles de un posible enemigo.

La nueva doctrina también tiene el objetivo de transformar el Ejército en una fuerza más eficaz y con más movilidad. Así, sus estructuras serán "optimizadas" mediante el uso de unidades de armas combinadas que sirven para tareas distintas.

El anterior documento, que se aprobó en el año 2000, esbozaba el papel de las Fuerzas Armadas para garantizar la defensa del país y, en caso necesario, prepararse para la guerra y llevarla a cabo, aunque subrayaba que la doctrina militar era estrictamente defensiva.

El gasto militar de Rusia ha estado creciendo de forma constante y el país pretende incrementar el actual presupuesto de defensa, que asciende a más de 29. 360 millones de euros, en un 50 por ciento durante los próximos tres años.

http://www.abc.es/20100205/internacional-europa/medvedev-aprueba-doctrina-militar-201002051937.html

‘EUA culpam Tratado de Lisboa pelo fiasco da cimeira europeia‘ sob a presidência espanhola in EU Observer

The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama's decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when.

"Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals, as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the rotating EU presidency, you've got an EU Council president, you've got a European Commission president," he said.

"We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will host it and where will it be held?" he added. "All of this is kind of being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe."

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December. It created the post of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department's Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in touch "directly" to discuss Mr Obama's decision after Madrid learned about it through the media on Monday.

"Obviously, there's been some disappointment expressed by the government of Spain, and we understand that and we'll be working with them on that," he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen, politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian fundamentalist pressure group.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend the prayer event "shocking."

http://euobserver.com/9/29398

Aumento da tensão com o Irão: ‘EUA enviam mísseis Patriot e navios para o Médio Oriente‘ in Guardian

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration's approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic programme.

Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position.

The administration is deploying two Patriot batteries, capable of shooting down incoming missiles, in each of the four Gulf countries. Kuwait already has an older version of the missile, deployed after Iraq's invasion. Saudi Arabia has long had the missiles, as has Israel.

An unnamed senior administration official told the New York Times: "Our first goal is to deter the Iranians. A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."

The chief of the US central command, General David Petraeus, said in a speech 10 days ago that countries in the region are concerned about Tehran's military ambitions and the prospect of it becoming a dominant power in the Gulf: "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."

Petraeus said the US is keeping cruisers equipped with advanced anti-missile systems in the Gulf at all times to act as a buffer between Iran and the Gulf states.

Washington is also concerned at the threat of action by Israel, which is predicting that Iran will be able to build a nuclear missile within a year, a much faster timetable than assessed by the US, and is warning that it will not let Tehran come close to completion if diplomacy fails.

The director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and other senior officials in Jerusalem last week to discuss Iran.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have joined Republican party leaders in trying to build public pressure on the administration to take a tougher line with Iran. One group, the Israel Project, has been running a TV campaign warning that Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.

"Imagine Washington DC under missile attack from nearby Baltimore," it says. "A nuclear Iran is a threat to peace, emboldens extremists, and could give nuclear materials to terrorists with the ability to strike anywhere."

Washington is also concerned that if Iran is able to build nuclear weapons, other states in the region will feel the need to follow. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to already have atomic bombs, although it does not officially acknowledge it.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said in London last week that the US will press for additional sanctions against Iran if it fails to curb its nuclear programme.

Europe's foreign affairs minister, Catherine Ashton, today said the UN security council should now take up the issue. "We are worried about what's happening in Iran. I'm disappointed at the failure of Iran to accept the dialogue and we now need to look again at what needs to happen there," she told Sky News.

"The next step for us is to take our discussions into the security council. When I was meeting with Hillary Clinton last week we talked about Iran and we were very clear this is a problem we will have to deal with."

However, China and Russia are still pressing for a diplomatic solution.

Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, continually referred to what he described as the Iranian threat during his evidence at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday. Textual analysis now shows that he mentioned Iran 58 times.

Besides the new missile deployment, Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia to create a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and other infrastructure, as well as expanded joint exercises between the US and military forces in the region.

The move is a continuation of the military build-up begun under former president George W Bush. In the past two years, Abu Dhabi has bought $17bn (£11bn) worth of weapons from the US, including the Patriot anti-missile batteries and an advanced anti-missile system. UAE recently bought 80 US-made fighter jets. It is also buying fighters from France.

Petraeus said in a speech in Bahrain last year the UAE air force "could take out the entire Iranian air force, I believe".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf

‘Cientistas envolvidos no escândalo dos emails escondem informação ambiental‘ in Times

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.

Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.

A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine.

The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.

In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”

He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”

Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.”

The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

‘União Europeia vê os seus sonhos de poder desvanecerem-se com a ascensão do «G2»‘ in Wall Street Journal

This year, the 27-nation European Union was supposed to come of age as an actor on the world stage, bolstered by the Lisbon Treaty, which streamlines the EU's cumbersome institutions. Instead, Europe is starting to look like the loser in a new geopolitical order dominated by the U.S. and emerging powers led by China.

When the world's policy and economic elite gather Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland, for the annual World Economic Forum, much of the talk will be about the rise of a "G-2" world where the U.S. and China are the most important players.

A growing number of European policymakers and analysts say the EU's international influence may have peaked thanks to a combination of political divisions and poor long-term prospects for its economy.

"The EU's attempts to be a coherent international actor seem to be decreasingly effective," says Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a pro-EU London think tank.

Europe's hope of playing a leading role in a multipolar world got a cold shower in Copenhagen last month, at the United Nations-sponsored talks on climate change. EU countries view themselves as leaders on the issue.

But no Europeans were invited when U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao held the make-or-break meeting on Dec. 18 that brokered the modest Copenhagen accord. The Chinese invited the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa.

That meeting and Europe's absence was "the seminal image of 2009," says a senior European diplomat. "It was a signal that we are becoming more and more marginalized and peripheral" in the new balance of global power, he says.

EU countries haven't helped their own cause lately. The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in December after eight years of struggle, was meant to make the EU a more coherent actor, in part by creating two new jobs—a president to lead EU summits and a high representative to present a united foreign policy.

Last fall, however, national leaders decided they didn't want powerful figures overshadowing them. They appointed Belgium's low-key premier, Herman Van Rompuy, to chair summits, and a previously obscure U.K. official, Catherine Ashton, to lead a common foreign policy.

Europe, of course, remains a major global player. Its $16 trillion economy accounts for 28% of global output, more than the U.S. The EU's integrated consumer market is the top destination for Chinese goods. Its industrial engine, Germany, remains the world's fourth-largest national economy and exports nearly as much merchandise as China.

Britain and France can still deploy significant military power abroad, and have permanent U.N. Security Council seats. Europeans are well represented in global institutions and committees, including the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum, where EU officials are influential in negotiating new banking rules.

Europe also has "soft power," in its ability to attract and co-opt others by offering EU membership to neighbors, and in representing a model of welfare capitalism to people around the world who dislike the more-individualistic American version.

Yet many of those measures of influence may have peaked, say foreign-affairs scholars.

"Europe has undersold its soft power because of its own confusion: Should it project its economic model, or should it adopt the one from across the Atlantic," says Rajeev Kumar, director of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

The EU suffered a deeper economic contraction than the U.S. in 2009, even though the U.S. was the epicenter of the economic crisis. It faces a slower recovery thanks partly to onerous public debt in many countries.

Europe's longer-term economic prospects are dimming: Ageing and, in some countries, shrinking populations will compound budget strains, while a growing retiree vote could entrench resistance to economic overhauls.

Economists at Goldman Sachs—who coined the term "BRIC" for Brazil, Russia, India and China—project the leading emerging economies will steadily overtake Western Europe's leading nations in coming decades, and that the U.S., Chinese and Indian economies will dwarf all others by mid-century.

Europe's strong representation in international forums is under fire. Critics from developing countries say Europeans still have too many votes at the IMF and U.N. Security Council, reflecting post-World War II reality rather than today's.

G-8 summits, where Europeans were in the majority, have already given way to the G-20 as the leading forum for discussing the world economy.

Many Europeans have long dreamt of a multipolar world, in which diplomacy and international law replace American dominance and military muscle-flexing. But EU-style soft power is turning out to be less useful than expected in dealing with China and other rising powers.

"China and Russia see the world in totally realist, zero-sum terms," says Mr. Grant, adding: "If we want China to take us seriously we have to have hard power," or the ability to twist arms through economic, military or other means.

The EU is inherently unsuited to wielding hard power "because it is not a state," says Francois Heisbourg, special adviser at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris think tank.

EU members such as Germany, Britain and France retain their own foreign and security policies, which are often at cross purposes, analysts say. China and Russia have each exploited such divisions to play off EU members against each other on issues such as human rights and energy supplies.

Last fall, U.K. Foreign Minister David Miliband called on EU countries to drop their foreign-policy differences in a widely noted speech, saying that "the choice for Europe is simple: Get our act together and make the EU a leader on the world stage, or become spectators in a G-2 world shaped by the U.S. and China."

Greater unity would help the EU to deal more effectively with China, Russia and others, but the EU's rapid expansion in recent years has also made unity harder to achieve. That hasn't gone unnoticed in other regions.

When India's foreign ministry commissioned Mr. Kumar and other scholars to identify India's strategic interests for coming decades, the experts concluded India could ignore the EU's pretensions to be a world player.

"A more diverse and divergent Europe will remain quite involved with itself, rather than being able to project power," says Mr. Kumar.

The EU has one "silver bullet" that could boost its external influence, Mr. Kumar says: Admitting Turkey. "That would change the EU's demography, make it seem like less of a Christian bloc, and raise its acceptance" in Asia and the Middle East, he says.

However, Turkey's EU membership talks have stalled amid growing mistrust on both sides.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905604575027094159815012.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

‘Um século asiático? Não será para já‘ por Guy Sorman in City Journal

Pundits are proclaiming the beginning of an Asian century. Many think that the next G20 meeting, which will take place in Seoul this autumn, represents a transfer of power from West to East, a decline of Western influence, and a geopolitical tectonic shift. Such a hyperbolic vision of history seems justified, at least on the surface, by a series of recent events. China, for instance, is said to have surpassed Germany’s exports and should thus be considered the leading global economic power.

Actually, the statistic is irrelevant, because it considers as exports products that are merely assembled in China: the imports that make possible the assembly—and eventual exporting—should be deducted from the measure. Other observers have pointed to the South Korean company Korean Electric, which recently outbid Électricité de France to build three nuclear reactors in Abu Dhabi. Like the Chinese exports, though, this success should not be overstated. The South Koreans will build and manage American-made reactors, using technology from . . . Westinghouse.

Recent Asian breakthroughs do make for a contrast with the pervasive gloom in the West, where the economic crisis is far from over. Governments in the U.S. and Europe seem unable to understand why huge public expenses have failed to stimulate their economies. Neither the Obama administration nor the Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown governments grasp the fact that public spending and welfare statism may have broken the backs of would-be entrepreneurs. Asian governments didn’t make the same mistake. South Korea, for example, has simultaneously helped its poor and deregulated its labor market. Asia has used the crisis to reinforce free-market mechanisms.

But proclaiming the end of the West and the advent of the Asian century would be premature, to say the least. First, what do we mean by Asia? Perhaps South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and the Eastern China seaboard share some common cultural characteristics. Central and Western China, however, remain mired in the medieval era; Indonesia belongs to an entirely different world; India, too, is wholly different from the rest of Asia. Asia knows no political unity: parts of it are democratic, other parts ruled by despots. There is no Asian economic system as such: China’s state-run capitalism doesn’t belong to the same category as Japanese and Korean private capitalism. India remains by and large an agricultural economy, dotted with an emerging small-business dynamism. Asia has no decision center, no coordinating institutions like NATO and the European Union.

For all its problems, moreover, the West is relatively at peace with itself; Asia is not. The continent is riddled with active conflicts around Pakistan and potential ones all around the China Sea. What guarantees border stability and open communication in Asia is NATO to the West and the Seventh American Fleet in the Pacific Ocean. If the U.S. Army and Navy were to leave, war would threaten the continent; at the very least, trade would suffer heavy disruptions. Asian economic dynamism would not survive the departure of the global cop. It’s hard to believe in an Asian century when Asian security depends on non-Asian security forces.

Another of Asia’s weaknesses has to do with its poor record on innovation. Chinese exports contain little added value beyond cheap manpower. China sells sophisticated objects like smartphones to the rest of the world, but these devices are invented in the West. Though Japan and South Korea are much more creative than China, they, too, mostly improve products and services initially conceived in the West. Asia’s lagging innovation is probably rooted in its brand of rote education: when they have the opportunity, Asian students flock to North American and European colleges. And the brain drain doesn’t run the other way: 80 percent of Chinese students in the United States never return to China.

Asia’s undoubted progress happens to be related to its conversion to Western values. Capitalism, democracy, individualism, equality of the sexes, and secularism are all Western notions, and they’ve been adopted in varying degrees in Asia. Reactions against Westernization have also set in, alongside efforts to promote so-called Asian values, both Buddhist and Confucian, such as the Harmony Principle. Such attempts are weakened, however, by their evident political intentions. It’s well known among Asia scholars that China and South Korea manipulate the Harmony Principle to prevent democracy and weaken workers’ rights, respectively. Such political mangling is regrettable: the classic Harmony Principle, which essentially tells us that personal happiness is rooted in a natural social order and that one cannot be happy alone, is a rich philosophical concept and deserves better than to reappear in Communist or despotic garb. One also regrets that not much is done in India to keep alive the philosophy and spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the very few twentieth-century universal thinkers who rose from Asia.

Though the prophecy of an Asian century is premature, that doesn’t mean that Western domination won’t eventually subside. Despite its universities, cultural values, entertainment industry, and strong military, the West may not maintain its edge forever. Still, we should note that whenever we compare the relative power of West versus East, we may be clinging to an obsolete vocabulary. Our criteria themselves may belong to the past. Today, geography is a poor framework: there is no such thing as a national economy any longer. All products and services are global. The more sophisticated a product or a service, the more its national identity tends to disappear. There are no Western or Eastern cell phones, to say nothing of financial derivatives. When China buys American Treasury bills, which nation is depending on which? Exchange generates interdependence. When Asia grows, the West doesn’t necessarily become poorer. From now on, we rise or fall together. There is no contradiction, either, between West and East when it comes to threats against our global security, like terrorism or nuclear rogue states. Barriers have broken down even in popular culture: Korean rock singers are all the rage in China. Are they Korean or American?

So forget the Asian century; we’re entering the first global century. Globalization is so new that we don’t yet fully understand what’s happening to us; we cling to old concepts and lack the language to describe an emerging new world. We can argue about whether it will be a better world; what’s certain is that it will be a very different one.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0122gs.html

Francis Fukuyama: ‘Obama enganou-se sobre o significado da sua eleição‘ in Le Figaro

LE FIGARO. - Quel bilan faites-vous de la première année de la présidence Obama ?

Francis FUKUYAMA. - Obama s'est sans doute trompé sur la signification de son élection. La grande majorité qu'il a rassemblée en 2008 voulait moins faire bouger les lignes de la politique américaine vers la gauche, comme cela avait été le cas sous Roosevelt, qu'exprimer un vote de protestation à l'encontre de George W. Bush. De nombreux électeurs indépendants, centristes, qui votaient habituellement républicain lui ont donné leur vote. Or, Obama a lancé immédiatement d'ambitieuses réformes sociales. Le plan de relance, le sauvetage de l'industrie automobile, puis le chantier de la santé ont poussé bien des gens à conclure qu'il ne pratiquait pas la politique «au-delà des partis» qu'il avait promise. C'est la raison pour laquelle il rencontre si rapidement tant de résistance.

Les analystes ont pourtant beaucoup souligné pendant la campagne ce désir de changement qui traversait la société américaine : or, vous dites que cette société n'est pas prête pour de grands chamboulements ?

Oui, c'est ce que je pense. Le vote de la jeunesse n'a pas été aussi large qu'on l'a dit. Une grande partie des électeurs d'Obama est en réalité venue du centre. Mais peut-être cette erreur d'analyse du président va-t-elle finalement permettre à notre pays d'opérer une transformation majeure. Si le président arrache la réforme de la santé au Congrès, il aura accompli une tâche majeure. Les gens réaliseront qu'elle apporte de vrais bénéfices et que leurs peurs sont infondées.

Les grandes réformes ne vont-elles pas souvent à contre-courant ?

C'est vrai. Mais on a tort de comparer le contexte dans lequel se situe Obama à celui de 1932. Roosevelt avait un vrai mandat pour un changement profond. Même chose pour Reagan, ce qui n'est pas le cas pour Obama.

N'y a-t-il aucune chance que la réforme Climat sur la réduction des émissions de CO2 passe cette année ?

Aucune, selon moi, avec ce Congrès. Même chose pour la réforme de l'immigration, qui est faisable, mais n'est pas possible actuellement. Arracher la réforme de la santé serait déjà un accomplissement formidable. Depuis cinquante ans, tous les présidents ont tenté de s'atteler à cette tâche.

Certains disent qu'Obama n'a pas le talent de Lyndon Johnson pour amadouer le Congrès…

Peut-être, mais il faut comprendre que le Congrès a beaucoup changé et que la vie politique est beaucoup plus polarisée aujourd'hui. Cette polarisation vient du fait que les différents électorats se nourrissent des chaînes d'information correspondant à leurs choix idéologiques. Elle s'explique aussi par la disparition des hommes de l'ère Reagan qui étaient des républicains centristes, moins extrémistes qu'aujourd'hui.

Qu'a accompli le président en politique étrangère ?

Il a fait ce qui était le plus facile à faire : changer le ton de la diplomatie américaine, montrer qu'elle ne compte pas sur la seule force militaire. Il a fait des ouvertures vers l'Iran et la Corée du Nord, dont il était prévisible qu'elles n'auraient pas grand succès. Mais cela va lui permettre de revenir à une politique plus dure. On ne peut pas parler pour l'instant de succès ou d'échecs. La politique afghane aurait pu être plus prudente mais elle n'est pas non plus déraisonnable. Personnellement, je ne suis pas pour un retrait d'Afghanistan mais je ne suis pas certain qu'il soit pertinent d'ajouter un grand nombre de troupes. Dans les années 1980, le fait que les démocrates aient réduit les effectifs de l'armée a poussé les militaires à être plus performants dans la formation de cadres locaux. Le risque de l'envoi de troupes supplémentaires est que les militaires américains ne ressentent pas clairement l'urgence sur place : nous avons dix-huit mois pour commencer à passer la main. S'il s'avère que c'est un échec, il faudra partir.

L'Afghanistan peut-il être le piège qui fasse échouer cette présidence ?

Pas à court terme. Le risque d'échec est grand sur l'Iran ou le Pakistan. Le risque d'une guerre dans le golfe Persique est une vraie possibilité, car il est probable que les Iraniens passeront ce que les Israéliens considèrent comme une ligne rouge. Une action militaire israélienne est une vraie option.

Les Américains n'ont-ils pas les moyens de dissuader Israël de frapper l'Iran ?

L'Administration Obama n'a certainement aucun intérêt à ce qu'une guerre avec l'Iran éclate, mais je ne pense pas qu'elle ait la capacité ni la volonté politique de stopper Israël. Cette Administration en est réduite à limiter les dégâts. Or, le dossier nord-coréen montre les limites des initiatives diplomatiques. Si l'Iran décide de poursuivre son programme nucléaire, nous aurons bien du mal à en gérer les conséquences militaires.

Cette impuissance ne révèle-t-elle pas le déclin de l'ordre américain et plus généralement occidental ?

Si la crise dégénère, c'est effectivement ce que cela démontrera. Mais si Obama n'est pas rattrapé par l'Iran ou le Pakistan, et passe sa réforme de la santé, il pourrait bien devenir un très grand président.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/01/20/01003-20100120ARTFIG00069-obama-s-est-trompe-sur-la-signification-de-son-election-.php

‘Kabul atingida em pleno coração‘ in Courrier International

Un groupe d’extrémistes a lancé, le 18 janvier, une attaque spectaculaire contre le gouvernement afghan. Deux kamikazes ont fait exploser des bombes tandis que des affrontements se déroulaient à 50 mètres seulement des portes du palais présidentiel. Selon les autorités afghanes, 3 soldats, 2 civils et 7 assaillants ont trouvé la mort, et au moins 71 personnes ont été blessées.

Cette attaque était avant tout destinée à ébranler le calme de la capitale afghane. Les talibans sont un phénomène essentiellement rural dans un pays essentiellement rural. La grande majorité des troupes américaines est déployée dans les zones rurales, à l’extérieur des grandes villes. La plupart du temps, la guerre ne touche pas les centres urbains. Les talibans portent cependant de plus en plus la guerre au cœur des villes, ce qui démoralise les Afghans et donne l’impression qu’aucune partie du pays n’est épargnée. Les incidents du 18 janvier semblent destinés à semer la peur dans les quartiers habituellement tranquilles du centre de Kaboul et à montrer que les insurgés peuvent aisément frapper le gouvernement afghan soutenu par les Etats-Unis. A cet égard, l’attaque a été une réussite totale. Le marché Faroshga est en ruine, complètement dévasté. Les rues de Kaboul se sont vidées. Les commerçants ont fermé boutique et les Afghans ont quitté leur bureau. Même les gardes du président afghan ont participé aux combats. Selon Zabihullah Mujahid, porte-parole taliban, l’attaque était une réaction aux propositions américaine et afghane de “réconciliation” et de “réintégration” des combattants talibans dans la société, un projet qui est au cœur de la campagne américaine pour renverser le cours de la guerre et qui sera exposé par Hamid Karzai, le 28 janvier, lors d’une conférence internationale à Londres. “Nous sommes prêts à nous battre, nous avons la force de nous battre et personne chez les talibans ne veut d’un quelconque accord”, affirme-t-il.

Le raid du 18 janvier s’est déroulé selon un processus de plus en plus familier qui rappelle l’assaut contre le ministère de la Justice en février 2009 [qui avait fait 26 morts]. Un homme portant une ceinture d’explosifs s’est approché des portes de la banque centrale et a essayé de franchir le barrage des gardes. Ceux-ci l’ont abattu, mais l’homme a réussi à faire exploser sa charge dans la rue. En quelques minutes, des centaines de commandos, de soldats et de policiers afghans ont encerclé la place du Pachtounistan. Aucun soldat américain n’était sur place. Les seuls militaires occidentaux présents sur les lieux étaient un petit commando néo-zélandais. Un groupe de commandos afghans a déclaré être venu directement de l’entraînement. “On était en plein exercice quand on a eu le message”, explique Bawahudin, un jeune membre d’une unité antiterroriste. Au signal, les hommes se sont mis à courir. Les yeux de Bawahudin reflétaient la peur. Tandis que la bataille faisait rage, une onde de choc s’est répandue dans une autre partie de la ville. Un autre terroriste venait de faire exploser une camionnette arborant le nom de l’hôpital Maiwan. Les policiers ont tiré de la carcasse les restes d’un homme – trapu et à la peau foncée. Un Arabe, ont-ils affirmé. Mais personne ne semblait en être très sûr.

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2010/01/19/kaboul-frappe-en-plein-coeur

‘Escritórios do Jyllands-Posten iam ser alvo de atentado terrorista com camião‘ in Politiken

U.S. prosecutors have released an extended indictment in the case against two men charged with conspiracy against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, suggesting that the newspaper’s offices in Denmark were to have been the target of a truck bomb attack.

Jyllands-Posten was the Danish newspaper that originally commissioned and printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which angered many Muslims. One of the cartoonists, Kurt Westegaard, has recently been the target of an attack on his life. A 28-year-old Somali is currently on remand in Denmark on attempted murder charges.

Two detained in U.S.
In the U.S. case involving the newspaper, two men are currently in custody in Chicago charged with having planned the attack – a Pakistani-American David Headley and a Pakistani-Canadian Rana Tahawwur. Headley, whose name was Daood Gilani before changing his name, is said to be helping U.S. agencies.

The extended case now also includes in absentia charges against the head of the al-Qaeda affiliated Pakistani terrorist group Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami, Ilyas Kashmiri. Kashmiri is currently believed to be in Waziristan, and is said to have been the bankroller and mastermind of the planned attack.

Central to the charges are scouting trips made by Headley to the newspaper’s offices in Copenhagen and Århus, as well as Headley’s alleged involvement in extended scouting trips to Mumbai in India to determine targets and locations for the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in which more than 160 people died.

Video spying
The indictment describes how Kashmiri had closely studied video footage taken by Headley in January 2009, including sequences from the Jyllands-Posten offices in Copenhagen and Århus. At a meeting in February 2009 in Pakistan, Headley is alleged to have been told by Kashmiri that he had contacts in Europe who could provide funding, weapons and men in order to carry out the attacks.

At the same time, Kashmiri is reported to have suggested that the group should consider carrying out the attack using a lorry filled with explosives.

Europe
Armed with contact details to Kashmiri’s contacts, Headley is then said to have travelled from Chicago to various European destinations to meet contacts, and for a further visit to Denmark to scout the Jyllands-Posten locations.

The U.S. charges also include suggestions that Kashmiri had been urged to arrange an attack on Denmark by a senior al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Saeed al-Masri, aka Mustafa Abu al-Yazid and who is said to have been the financial head of al-Qaeda.

Following the Danish embassy bombing in Islamabad in June 2008, al-Masri appeared in a video in which he claimed the attack had been carried out by a Saudi al-Qaeda operative, and urged further attacks on Denmark in connection with the cartoon issue and Denmark's involvement in the international force in Afghanistan.

Kashmiri is said to have passed the task of scouting Denmark on to Headley, who was to carry out the same type of intelligence gathering as he is alleged to have done for the Mumbai attacks.

Not guilty
Tahawwur Rana, who is said to be a close friend of Headley from their time at a Pakistani academy, has denied all charges against him.

On his arrest, the FBI says that Headley initially admitted that he and Pakistani terrorist groups had been planning an attack on the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

Recently, however, he denied all charges during his court appearance in Chicago.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article880501.ece

‘Política económica de Pequim põe em risco o barco global‘ in Der Spiegel

It was just over a year ago that Huang Fajing, 55, was struggling to keep his company afloat. The president of lighter manufacturer Wenzhou Rifeng Lighters Co., Huang was forced to send his roughly 500 workers home early as a result of the global economic crisis. He himself had little to do but watch television in his luxury apartment in the eastern Chinese industrial city of Wenzhou.

Now, a year later, business is back in full swing in Wenzhou's factories, which supply the world with inexpensive goods, from buttons to electric cables to, of course, lighters. At Rifeng, workers wearing gray uniforms press tiny metal parts into the lighter shells, which are then sold to smokers in Europe, the United States and Japan.

Given Huang's slim profit margins of no more than 5 percent, Huang has carefully fine-tuned the work performed by the young men and women in his factory to eliminate unnecessary movements. But the fact that he has survived the crisis at all is largely thanks to his government -- and the decision in the summer of 2008 to once again peg the exchange rate of the yuan to the US dollar.

The Crutch

Beijing uses this policy to ensure that the country's factories can continue to export their products at ever cheaper prices. Because the value of the dollar has declined sharply, the yuan has fallen along with it, losing up to 17 percent of its value against the euro in 2009. At the same time, this artificially low exchange rate serves as a crutch that enables the Chinese government to protect many of its export businesses against failure. It is the only reason why exports declined by only 1.2 percent in November 2009, relative to the same month a year earlier, allowing China to replace Germany as the world's top export economy.

Many in the West see the rising economic power as an enormous engine of growth that is helping to lift the rest of the world out of the crisis. The government in Beijing has jump-started the domestic economy with a gigantic economic stimulus package worth four trillion yuan, or about €400 billion ($580 billion), which has led to investments in road, railway and airport construction throughout the country. Generous tax rebates to stimulate consumption, particularly of big-ticket items like cars, were also part of the package.

But China, with its enormous export economy, has in fact expanded global imbalances with its aggressive exchange rate strategy -- the same kind of imbalances that were partly responsible for the most recent financial crisis and, as a result, ought to be corrected.

China also risks triggering new, long-term trade conflicts, particularly with its neighbors. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, China has been diverting some of its exports to neighboring countries and away from Europe and the US, where sales have declined.

Series of Dumping Complaints

Some of its neighbors have already taken defensive measures. Vietnam recently devalued its currency, the dong, by 5 percent, making imports more expensive and protecting the domestic industry from a flood of Chinese goods. India has submitted a series of dumping complaints to the World Trade Organization (WTO), including one involving cheap imported paper from China. And Indonesia has sought to protect itself against cheap Chinese nails by imposing protective tariffs.

Western companies, on the other hand, are still relatively unconcerned about Beijing's exchange rate policy -- with good reason. Manufacturers that produce inexpensive shoes, electric drills or computers in China for sale in their domestic markets have no reason to complain. And many German businesses, particularly machine manufacturers, can still sell their products in the realm of the cheap yuan, because their Chinese customers are often willing to pay higher prices for German quality.

Nevertheless, there is growing opposition in Europe and the United States to a policy whereby China is trying to export its way to economic health, essentially at the expense of the rest of the world. Throughout the country, Chinese provincial officials are vying to expand local state-owned factories and build new ones. The steel industry alone has increased its capacity by about a third in the space of only two years.

Duties on Chinese Tires

As a result, the world must brace itself for a new wave of cheap Chinese-made goods. "Unfortunately, we will see a lot more dumping complaints against China in the second half of 2010," predicts Jörg Wuttke, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in Beijing.

In late December, the EU imposed a 64.3 percent anti-dumping tariff on Chinese metal wire used in the auto industry, and the US is likewise protecting itself by imposing new duties on cheap Chinese tires and steel pipes. Beijing threatens to retaliate by imposing symbolic tariffs on American chickens and cars.

Ironically, China, with its policy of keeping the yuan artificially undervalued will ultimately harm itself more than anyone -- not unlike a rehab patient reaching desperately for more drugs. In order to keep the yuan down, the Chinese central bank must constantly buy up dollars. As a result, the country has amassed the world's largest foreign currency reserves, worth $2.3 trillion. China invests about two-thirds of its reserves in American currency, primarily in US treasury bonds. But as the dollar continues to fall, the value of this investment declines along with it.

China, however, has so far refused to enter into a debate over their economy's chronic dependence on manipulated exchange rates. At a meeting with EU representatives in Nanjing, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao dismissed as "unfair" a politely worded request that he reduce the value of his currency against the dollar to rein in the flood of exports. Even US President Barack Obama, during his recent visit to China, was reluctant to be appropriately forceful in addressing the politically taboo subject.

Indefinite Exploitation

The issue seems to have become an embarrassment to Beijing's leaders, particularly given their declared goal of balancing China's current accounts with other countries by the end of 2010.

This aim was the work of men like Yu Yongding, 61. A former advisor to the Chinese central bank, Yu now has an office on the 15th floor of the Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, a respected government think tank. Having been a leading visionary for a world power, Yu now finds himself having to defend his life's work.

He celebrated his greatest triumph on July 21, 2005, when the People's Bank of China, as the Chinese central bank is officially called, slightly appreciated the yuan against the dollar, while simultaneously removing the currency's dollar peg. From then on, instead of being firmly pegged to the dollar, the yuan fluctuated within fixed parameters against a currency basket made up of several different currencies.

This led to a 22-percent increase in the yuan's value against the dollar by November 2008. Reformers like Yu, imagining that China was on the verge of liberating itself from a dependency on low-wage industry, celebrated the course correction as a symbolic beginning. They also believed that a higher-valued yuan would reduce the cost of imports to China, stimulate private consumption and enable the People's Republic to join the ranks of high-tech nations in the long term. "We cannot allow the United States to indefinitely exploit us as a low-wage country," says Yu.

The Bubble Could Burst

During the course of the global crisis, though, the reformers soon found themselves on the defensive. One of those reformers is Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the central bank. Zhou sets the yuan's exchange rate, practically at the instruction of the cabinet, which is intent on doing whatever it can to boost exports to achieve its goal of increasing gross domestic product by 8 percent. Initial forecasts indicate that Chinese GDP actually grew even more in 2009 -- as much as 9 percent.

But with his rigid exchange rate regime, Zhou is also fueling China's enormous economic bubble. Some of the foreign currency he is forced to continually extract from the market to bolster the yuan is subsequently re-injected into the monetary cycle in the form of increased liquidity. Low interest loans from Chinese banks are indirectly fueling widespread speculation in stocks and real estate.

Were the US to suddenly raise interest rates, the bubble could burst. Indeed, by pegging the yuan to the dollar, China ultimately makes itself dependent on US monetary policy. "No one knows how much lower the dollar will go," says economist Lin Jiang of the Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou, "or if the US will suddenly end its policy of easy money."

But many of his fellow Chinese, on the contrary, see the dollar peg as a symbol of national sovereignty instead of distasteful dependence. "The more the West urges China to appreciate the yuan, the less the government will respond," says former central bank advisor Yu.

Huang, the lighter manufacturer, is pinning his hopes on the yuan remaining undervalued. "If Beijing appreciates the currency by more than 1.5 percent," he says, "I will go out of business."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,671310,00.html

(Re)leituras: Europaeum vol 8, nº 1 (2007) - Medieval Roots of Europe

‘Iémen: um imam estará ligado aos ataques de Fort Hood et do voo 253‘ in Le Monde

L´imam Anwar al-Aulaqi serait lié à la fusillade de la base militaire américaine de Fort Hood en novembre ainsi qu'à l'attentat raté contre le vol Amsterdam-Detroit du 25 décembre, a indiqué dimanche 3 janvier le conseiller anti-terroriste du président Barack Obama.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, un prédicateur musulman né aux Etats-Unis mais qui vit aujourd'hui au Yémen, "nous pose problème. Il essaie de fomenter des actes terroristes" a déclaré à la chaîne de télévision CNN ce conseiller, John Brennan. "Selon certains éléments, Aulaqi a été en contact direct avec [Abdul Farouk] Abdulmutallab", le Nigérian poursuivi pour avoir voulu faire sauter le vol 253 de la compagnie américaine Northwest Airlines, a-t-il ajouté.

Le nom de l'imam Anwar al-Aulaqi a déjà été cité dans la fusillade qui a fait 13 morts et 42 blessés le 5 novembre à Fort Hood (Texas, sud), la plus grande base de l'armée américaine. Le tireur, le psychiatre militaire Nidal Hasan, avait évoqué en 2008 le meurtre d'Américains avec l'imam, a raconté récemment ce dernier à la presse, soulignant qu'ils se connaissaient depuis neuf ans.

"Mon avis est que le major Hasan a réalisé tout seul cet attentat" mais qu'"il a été inspiré par le genre de discours de personnes comme Aulaqi", a ajouté le conseiller présidentiel. M. Brennan a toutefois refusé de qualifier la fusillade de Fort Hood d'attentat terroriste. "Nous continuons à enquêter là-dessus", a-t-il précisé.

http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2010/01/03/yemen-un-imam-serait-lie-aux-attentats-de-fort-hood-et-du-vol-253_1287015_3222.html#ens_id=1262453

Cartoon de Morland para o jornal Times

Leituras de fim de ano: Uma História da Felicidade de Darrin MacMahon

‘Ataque terrorista de Detroit: uma ideologia criminosa tolerada por demasiado tempo‘ in Telegraph

Friday's attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner by a British-educated Islamist was foiled by the bravery of its passengers and crew. We cannot assume that we will be lucky next time. And the indications are that there will be a next time. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. But most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs in the Islamic world: they were indoctrinated in Britain. Indeed, thousands of young British Muslims support the use of violence to further the Islamist cause – and this despite millions of pounds poured by the Government into projects designed to prevent Islamic extremism.

Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.

Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. The authorities, lacking specialist knowledge, sometimes turn for advice to "moderate" Muslims who have extreme sympathies; supporters of al-Qaeda are paid to disseminate their ideology to young people.

Radical Islamist leaders are not stupid: they know how to play this system. The indoctrination of students carries on under the noses of public servants who are terrified of being labelled Islamophobic or racist. Therefore they fail to do their duty, which is to protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike from a terrorist ideology. If providing that protection requires fewer "consultations" with "community leaders" and more arrests, then so be it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6903728/Detroit-terror-attack-A-murderous-ideology-tolerated-for-too-long.html

‘Medo e heroísmo a bordo do voo 253 da Northwest Airlines‘ in Washington Post

First came an alarming popping sound, followed by silence, and then the unmistakable smell of smoke. Passengers began to shout and scream on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam.

"People were just running, and they were scared," said Veena Saigal, who turned from her seat on the Christmas Day flight and saw the fire's glow six rows back. "They were running toward the center of the plane, running to get away from the flames."

Jasper Schuringa, an Amsterdam resident, lunged toward the fire in Row 19, jumping from one side of the plane to the other and over several other passengers. He burned his fingers as he grabbed a piece of melting plastic held by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused Saturday of trying to bring down the passenger jet with a homemade explosive device.

Schuringa, a video producer, restrained Abdulmutallab as others used blankets and fire extinguishers to douse the flames.

"When I saw the suspect, that he was getting on fire, I freaked, of course, and without any hesitation I just jumped over all the seats," Schuringa told CNN on Saturday. "And I jumped to the suspect. I was thinking like, he's trying to blow up the plane."

The stretch of time from bafflement to abject fear to a calamity averted lasted just a few minutes on the flight, yet as they replayed those moments from their homes on Saturday, passengers described a drama that left many shaken long after the jetliner safely touched down.

"We heard a pop, then the smell and the reality kicked in for all of us. The reality was the fear in the flight attendants' eyes," said Charles Keepman, a Wisconsin businessman returning from Ethiopia, where he and his wife had adopted two children. "We're just thankful to the Lord that we were spared."

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, praised the quick reactions of those on the plane, which recalled the heroism of passengers who had subdued so-called shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid as he tried to ignite chemicals on a flight in December 2001 and the actions of people on United Airlines Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results," Napolitano said in a statement Saturday.

The flight from Amsterdam to Detroit seemed long and uneventful until the final minutes, passengers said. Witnesses told the FBI that Abdulmutallab, 23, spent about 20 minutes in the bathroom before returning to Seat 19A and complaining of an upset stomach. He pulled a blanket over his head.

Then came the loud and sudden popping sound.

"What I heard was a firecracker, like a champagne bottle opening. I thought maybe something happened to a window or something hit the plane," said Saigal, who was returning to Ann Arbor from India in Row 13. "Then I smelled the smoke. When I turned around, I could see the fire glow."

Schuringa, on his way to Miami for vacation, leaped from the other side of the plane toward the fire as it spread from Abdulmutallab's pants to pillows on the floor. He said he reacted without thinking, fearful that the fire would cause an explosion that would bring down the plane and nearly 300 passengers and crew members.

As other passengers shouted for water, Schuringa pulled the melted plastic syringe from Abdulmutallab, shook it and threw it to the floor, the FBI said in an affidavit. Flight attendant Dionne Ransom-Monroe asked the suspect what was in his pocket, the FBI said, and he replied, "Explosive device."

The fire out, Schuringa marched Abdulmutallab to the front of the plane, helped by a flight attendant. They stripped off some of his clothes, searched him for weapons and handcuffed him, Schuringa said on CNN, explaining that the suspect seemed almost in a trance. Abdulmutallab said nothing and did not resist, he said.

"He looked like a normal guy," Schuringa said. "It's just hard to believe he was actually trying to blow up this plane."

Saigal, 63, said Schuringa "was holding him from the back, with a strong grip."

"When he went back to his seat, we all clapped," Saigal said of Schuringa.

Passengers and crew members worked to restore calm as the jet sped toward Detroit. Syed Jafry, an engineering consultant from Ohio who watched from Row 16, said the captain told passengers over the intercom: "There was an incident, and everything is under control. It is over. Fasten your seat belts. We are about to land."

As investigators explore how Abdulmutallab allegedly smuggled power and chemicals aboard the flight, Saigal and Keepman voiced distinctly different views of security in Amsterdam, the airliner's last stop before reaching Detroit.

"They're very thorough," Saigal said. "Always in Amsterdam, you go through people questioning you . . . and they put your hand baggage, your purse -- not your shoes -- through security again."

Keepman, however, said security procedures in Amsterdam seemed less rigorous than the measures he had faced at the Detroit airport on his outbound flight.

"I have to be honest, it was lax compared to here," said Keepman, who co-owns a transportation logistics company. "They push you through quite quickly, especially on international flights, because there are so many people to get through."

Keepman was not impressed with the questioning session.

"They ask the questions," Keepman said. "But the person's going to look you right in the eye and lie to you: 'Are you carrying something that could explode on the plane?' 'Certainly not, sir.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/26/AR2009122601150_2.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2009122601151

‘Cimeira de Copenhaga: EUA declaram-se vencedores‘ in El Pais

El destino de la lucha contra el calentamiento se ha decidido en una sala cerrada de la primera planta del centro de convenciones de la Cumbre del Clima de Copenhague. Allí, Barack Obama, el chino Wen Jiabao, el brasileño Lula da Silva y el indio Manmohan Singh no sólo acordaron un acuerdo que admitieron como insuficiente.

En esa sala, con poco más de 35 personas, EE UU impuso su ley y logró el cambio de eje de las relaciones internacionales en la lucha con el cambio climático y en el sistema de Naciones Unidas, incapaz de avanzar durante dos años. Los 119 líderes reunidos en Dinamarca regresaron a casa sin foto de familia. Algo, mucho, saltó por los aires en esa sala a puerta cerrada.

Con el pacto promovido por EE UU, a la UE y al resto de países no le quedó más que ratificarlo tras una noche de debate vacío en el que sólo Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba y Sudán se opusieron para ganar protagonismo.

El Acuerdo de Copenhague siempre fue cosa de dos, China y EE UU. Hasta tal punto han monopolizado los debates que en uno de los últimos borradores los países escribieron entre corchetes: "Introducir aquí la consideración de EE UU y China". Así figura en el cuarto borrador, junto al punto de cómo el acuerdo permitiría verificar las emisiones de los países emergentes, el punto al que China se opuso.

Así que Obama y Wen, en su segundo encuentro en el día, dieron con la fórmula: los países en desarrollo realizarán su propia "medición, declaración y verificación de sus emisiones", pero a la vez aceptan un sistema de "consultas y análisis internacionales bajo unas guías claras que asegurarán que se respeta la soberanía nacional".

Pekín vetó la palabra verificación como una opción de la ONU. Los recortes de emisiones financiados con dinero internacional -sea un parque eólico o una central hidroeléctrica- sí tendrán control internacional.

El lenguaje es enrevesado como todo en esta cumbre. Leer los tres folios del Acuerdo de Copenhague es sumergirse en conceptos aparentemente vaporosos pero que esconden detrás dos años -desde que en Bali en 2007 se acordó que en 2009 habría un tratado- de enconadas disputadas.

El texto también establece que "el cambio climático es uno de los grandes retos de nuestro tiempo", que "el incremento de la temperatura debería estar por debajo de dos grados" y que las emisiones habrían de tocar techo "lo antes posible". Y todo esto se conseguirá, supuestamente, con objetivos voluntarios de reducción de emisiones que los países presentarán antes de febrero de 2010.

"Científicamente el acuerdo es como una mesa de una sola pata: no se aguanta", resume un negociador. Las rebajas anunciadas, en caso de cumplirse, sólo reducirían un 18% las emisiones de los países desarrollados en 2020, lejos del rango de entre el 25% y el 40% que pidió el Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático. Con las ofertas voluntarias la temperatura subirá unos tres grados, según un informe de la ONU. "El acuerdo no sirve para el objetivo de los dos grados", admitió el presidente de turno de la UE, Fredrik Reinfelt.

Los textos previos, incluso el acordado en la reunión G-8 del pasado verano o el pactado en Bali en 2007 eran mucho más precisos y pedían una reducción mínima de emisiones del 25%. Pero la Casa Blanca se opuso por poco realista. Europa confiaba en que, al dirigirse al mundo, Obama fuera más allá. "En reuniones informales nos habían dicho que con compensación de emisiones su bajada estaría entre el 26% y el 33%", explicó en los pasillos Josef Matthias Leinen, jefe de la delegación del Parlamento Europeo. Pero Obama, enrocado en elevar la presión a China no se movió de su postura.

En el acuerdo tampoco aparece que en 2050 las emisiones deberían situarse un 50% por debajo de las de 1990. Lo vetó China, como reveló el presidente de la Comisión Europea, José Manuel Durao Barroso. Lo más claro es el compromiso de financiación para los países en desarrollo, que permitió a los africanos sumarse al acuerdo.

El resultado no satisface a nadie. Obama, en una breve declaración antes de dejar Copenhague por la puerta de atrás, dijo: "Sabemos que el avance no es suficiente y que queda mucho camino por hacer". El presidente de EE UU, sin embargo, pidió realismo: "Creo que hace falta un tratado (vinculante). Pero esta era la típica situación en la que si hubiéramos esperado a que pasara no habríamos avanzado nada" y criticó a quienes hubieran preferido "dos pasos atrás antes que un paso adelante". Obama, cuyo discurso en Copenhague, fue recibido con una inusitada frialdad por el tono mecánico y tenso de sus palabras. Se defendió de que en el acuerdo todo sea voluntario: "Kioto era legalmente vinculante y a todo el mundo le pareció poco. Es importante avanzar en vez de tener palabras en un papel".

Como no había forma de acordar nada sobre cómo pasar de los objetivos voluntarios a un acuerdo legalmente vinculante en 2010 -como querían la UE y EE UU- la opción fue dejarlo en blanco. El papel no aclara si se prorrogara Kioto, si habrá un nuevo tratado ni cuándo. Simplemente no existe ninguna mención. En busca del consenso para salvar la cara se llegó a situaciones así.

Una vez pactado entre los cinco grandes, Obama anunció que se lo comunicaría "a los europeos" y luego al grupo de 28 jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de todos los grupos que preparaban el texto político.

El sistema de trabajo es el resultado de una inteligente estartegia de EE UU. Obama, con el Nobel de la Paz por el mutilateralismo, envió una delegación de altísimo nivel a la cumbre. Desde la primera semana, el enviado especial de Obama, Todd Stern, dirigió las negociaciones, mucho antes de que llegaran los ministros europeos. Por la cumbre han pasado siete seretarios (ministros) de su Administración, desde Hillary Clinton al premio Nobel de Física y secretario de Energía, Steven Chu.

Pero a la vez, Washington ha conseguido lo que Bush no logró: sacar la negociación fuera del plenario de Naciones Unidas, donde cualquiera de los 193 países puede vetar cualquier acuerdo y eternizar las discusiones. Obama negoció a puerta cerrada, lo entregó al pleno y se fue. Los delegados seguían enzarzados en discusiones sin final y en largos discursos con barrocas formas de cortesía diplomática -"con el debido respeto a esta presidencia y sin socavar su autoridad", y frases similares cuando el avión presidencia aterrizaba en Washington.

Bush intentó crear un foro paralelo a la ONU en el que las grandes economías se pusieran de acuerdo para, de forma voluntaria, afrontar el cambio climático. Fracasó. Igual que ha ocurrido en Copenhague pero dentro de un edificio de Naciones Unidas.

"Lo ocurrido, el pacto a puerta cerrada refrendado por la ONU, tendrá enormes cnsecuencias, no solo para la Convención de Cambio Climático, sino para todo el sistema de Naciones Unidas. Vamos hacia la Organización Mundial del Comercio donde todo se decide a puerta cerrada", lamentó resignado ayer por la mañana, después de más de 24 horas sin dormir, Kim Carsten, de WWF, uno de los únicos 300 miembros de ONG autorizados a entrar los últimos días de la cumbre. "Si la UE ha eliminado la unanimidad porque no sirve para 27 países con intereses comunes, ¿cómo va a servir para la ONU?".

El problema es que el espectáculo que ofreció la ONU como alternativa fue lamentable. 183 países estaban de acuerdo y pedían apoyar el texto como la única solución posible. Pero el bloque bolivariano -Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua y Cuba- y Sudán se oponían. El sudanés Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping llegó a afirmar que el texto "es producto de la misma ideología que llevó a los hornos crematorios a seis millones de personas en Europa", por lo que recibió reproches de decenas de Estados.

Durante 10 horas, toda la noche, decenas de países defendieron el texto, pero la ONU exige consenso y por la mañana Hugo Chávez y Evo Morales ya habían anunciado que bloquearían cualquier acuerdo porque no habían sido invitados a la reunión de 28 países y porque la ONU no funciona así. A las siete de la mañana, el ministro británico Ed Miliband, frenó en el último segundo, a base de dar golpes en la mesa para llamar la atención del presidente, que el texto quedara incluido como una simple propuesta, lo que habría impedido aplicar los fondos de ayuda a los países en desarrollo. Miliband, en una vibrante intervención advirtió de que si el acuerdo era rechazado "supondría romper la convención de Naciones Unidas", algo que planeaba en el ambiente ya que de ninguna forma lo acordado por los líderes de 183 países iba a depender de Chávez.

"Ha sido el plenario más vergonzoso al que he asistido. Si no somos capaces de ponernos de acuerdo en esto, ¿cómo vamos a alcanzar un tratado vinculante?", declaró el representante saudí.

Pasadas las 10 de la mañana, tras dos horas de parón para consultar con los servicios jurídicos, la cumbre "tomó nota" del acuerdo y el presidente golpeó con la maza a toda velocidad para que nadie pudiera protestar. La fórmula permite, según el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon, que el acuerdo "entre en vigor inmediatamente", dijo tras observar mudo desde la presidencia 10 horas de descontrol.

La reacción de Miliband, una de las figuras clave del laborismo británico, salvó la cara de la UE. Apartada en la negociación clave, los europeos se van de Copenhague con la sensación de que les han robado la cartera, que el proceso que lideraron durante dos décadas ya no está bajo su control y que, los nuevos capitanes quieren ir en otra dirección. Barroso hizo malabarismos: "La UE lidera cuando se trata de elevar los objetivos, pero no está cuando lo que se busca es reducir la ambición". La UE se reserva su oferta de ampliar su recorte de emisiones del 20% actual al 30% hasta ver cómo evoluciona la negociación. Los delegados europeos musitaban por los pasillos las palabras "Decepción, desastre y fiasco". "Es el mundo que tenemos", lamentaban. Y, sin embargo, el pacto se salvó por el empuje de un británico, no por la representación estadounidense.

La reacción china al acuerdo también fue fría. Cuando Wen aceptó el pacto, uno de sus ministros comenzó a gritar en chino con gestos de desacuerdo. "La traductora no dijo qué gritaba", explica una fuente presente en el encuentro. En el plenario que después adoptó el pacto entre los cinco grandes, China no defendió ni una sola vez su aprobación frente a las críticas del bloque bolivariano. La delegación china aplaudía las declaraciones de estos países contra la forma "antidemocráctica en la que se adoptó el acuerdo", según negociadores en la sala, cerrada a la prensa por primera vez en 10 años. Fuentes de la ONU dudan de que Pekín buscara boicotear su acuerdo a través de otros países: "Probablemente lo hacían porque arremetían contra EE UU y los países ricos".

La dificultad para alcanzar un acuerdo puede parecer excesiva, pero es que las implicaciones de la lucha contra el cambio climático son inabarcables: para conseguir limitar la temperatura y estabilizar la concentración de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera hace falta una revolución industrial con energía verde, dejar atrás el petróleo, actuar sobre el comercio internacional, tratar la aviación, evitar la deforestación... La española María Neira, de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, estuvo hasta el ultimo día: "Si esto sale adelante sera el principal tratado de salud pública del mundo. Los millones de muertes por contaminación en las ciudades y la mala calidad del aire interior por combustión de cocinas de mala calidad en países en desarrollo empezarán a caer".

El acuerdo incluye que el Fondo del Clima pagará a los países tropicales para que no talen sus bosques, imprescindibles para el planeta. Luz entre las sombras.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/EE/UU/declara/vencedor/elpepusoc/20091220elpepusoc_1/Tes?print=1