The Asparagus

The End Of The Asparagus

2011-08-11T14:20:00.002+01:00

After more than four years and 250 posts, I've decided to close this blog down. For quite a while I've been busy with my other websites and have struggled to find the time to update it very often, and so I'm going to end it here. However, I'll leave all of the posts online as an archive. Thanks for reading!

No Sign Of Easy Solution To Libya Conflict

2011-06-29T14:36:00.002+01:00

France has reportedly begun supplying weapons on the quiet to the rebels in Libya, in an attempt to help them break the apparent stalemate in their battle against Colonel Gaddafi's forces. According to a source quoted in Le Figaro, France took the action without consulting its partners in the NATO bombing of the regime, because "there was no other way to proceed."

It's been slow going over the past three months for France, Britain and their allies. Forced to intervene to prevent a possible massacre when Gaddafi's forces reached the gates of the rebel-held Benghazi, the notion that Gaddafi's regime might fall quickly under pressure from the rebel forces on the ground and the NATO warplanes in the air now looks wildly optimistic. The popular uprising against Gaddafi which western leaders undoubtedly hoped for has not materialised, and instead of being on the side of the Libyan people, NATO rather appears to be merely on one side in a civil war. And the weaker side at that.

How NATO extracts itself from the conflict is less clear. But for a lesson from recent history, we can look a little further to the north in Bosnia. There, although the country's borders have remained in tact, largely separate administrations exist for the Serb-dominated areas, and those populated by Muslims and Croats. Critics say it's a solution which has put the conflict into deep freeze rather than solved it, but at least nobody's killing each other anymore.

Diplomats are reluctant to encourage the break-up of any nation, for fear that could spread instability to neighbouring countries, and the preferred option for those looking at Libya from both near and far would undoubtedly be it to remain in one piece. But when the internationally-brokered peace deal finally arrives, as surely it must, don't be surprised if it's a horribly complicated mess of regional assemblies and bureaucracies, that keeps everyone more or less apart, and just about happy enough to avoid reaching for their guns.

Bin Laden's Death A Part Of Al Qaeda's Slow Decline

2011-05-02T10:56:00.003+01:00

Osama bin Laden is dead. The leader of Al Qaeda was apparently shot and killed at a compound in Pakistan by American special forces. He'd been in hiding for almost a decade since ordering the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The death of bin Laden is undoubtedly symbolic. As well as being the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, he was its name and, through the video messages which had such a global impact in the months and years after 9/11, he was its face.

But, in practical terms, his death will have little impact on a network which has already been in gradual decline for some years. Bin Laden has been holed up in a house with little opportunity to communicate with the outside world, so his influence on Al Qaeda's people and operations has probably been extremely limited since 2001.

Besides, Al Qaeda, which roughly translates as "the base," has never been a conventional military or guerrilla type terrorist group, such as the Tamil Tigers or IRA. It's always been a very loose affilitation of groups in assorted parts of the world, often with wildly differing views and methods. The role of Bin Laden and his chief lieutenants has usually been one of financier, facilitator and, though his favourite philosophical notion of "propaganda by deed" - suicide bombings to you and me - inspiration.

The death of Bin Laden will weaken the idea of Al Qaeda as a central network still further. Groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is primarily based in Yemen, will carry on regardless. But with the Arab Spring suggesting that, in some countries at least, there's a desire for a democratic rather than Islamist future, those groups increasingly look like they're alongside Bin Laden on the wrong side of history.

Croatia's Hero Jailed For War Crimes

2011-04-15T12:53:00.003+01:00

One of the most popular figures in Croatia, Ante Gotovina, has been jailed for 24 years for war crimes carried out against the Serbs during the end of the Balkan War in 1995. Another man got 18 years, while a third was cleared, following an international trial in The Hague.

The Gotovina case has been a prickly one for successive Croatian governments. As the man who led the Croat Army to a series of victories over the Serbs in the summer of 1995, as the Serbs were themselves under pressure from belated international air strikes, he was and is something of a national hero. But hundreds of Serb civilians died during that campaign, as they were forced by the Croats from the Krajina region, traditionally a Serb enclave (the word Krajina means frontier).

And it's offences relating to that which have landed Gotovina in prison after all these years. But the real reason is much larger. Croatia wants to join the EU, and soon, like its neighbour Slovenia did back in 2004. Failing to finish the unfinished business of the war was a major sticking point preventing that happening.

If it weren't for the prospect of EU membership, Gotovina would surely still be at large. But that carrot has proved too strong for the Croatian government to resist, even if it means temporary unpopularity among many Croat citizens. Perhaps one day, something similar will help the Serbs bring Ratko Mladic and others to justice.

No Compromise For Syria's Assad

2011-03-31T14:11:00.002+01:00

While the world has been largely watching Libya, Syria has become the latest government to face protests as part of the so-called Arab Spring. But despite sacking his government, President Assad this week signalled he wouldn't be offering much in the way of compromises to his internal opponents, as he insisted long-standing emergency laws would remain in place.

The resignation of the entire government wasn't nearly as big a concession as it sounds. Control of Ba'athist Syria has always been concentrated in the hands of the President and a few cronies, including those who run the country's security apparatus. It was ever thus. The last serious attempt at an uprising, 29 years ago, ended in an extraordinary massacre ordered by the current President Assad's father.

When Assad Junior came to power in 2000, there was some hope he might prove to be a reforming leader. Western-educated and with a British-born wife, he was considered a somewhat reluctant President, who only got his chance after his elder brother Basil died in a mysterious car crash.

But those hopes have been gradually extinguished during his decade in office. He might not be about to massacre opponents as his father did, but President Assad is clearly determined to retain as much personal power as he's always had. If his regime ultimately falls as part of the Arab Spring, and that prospect seems an awfully long way off despite the demonstrations, it'll be quite a demonstration of how the region is changing.

Colonel Gaddafi Digs In

2011-03-07T16:25:00.002Z

Libyan military forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi have spent another day counter-attacking rebel positions in the east of the country. After large parts of the country fell during the early stages of the uprising, it's now the regime forces which are making most of the running.

Libya is different to Egypt and Tunisia, the two other North African countries in which autocratic leaders have recently departed in the face of public opposition. Part of it is down to Colonel Gaddafi himself, a man habitually described as mad, or at the very least unpredictable. Despite suggestions he might flee to Venezuela, he has remained in Tripoli in an attempt to see off the uprising, perhaps because he refuses to believe many of his people really have turned against him, and perhaps because after 42 years in power he simply can't contemplate leaving.

But part of it is also down to the internal structures of Libya. In Egypt, it was the powerful military, and its refusal to turn on the protestors, which spelled the end for President Mubarak. However, Libya has a relatively weak military, a legacy of Colonel Gaddafi wanting to prevent a coup of the sort that first brought him to power.

There are also large numbers of African mercenaries on Gaddafi's side, reportedly being paid $200 a day to fight. These are desperate men who have no qualms about attacking rebels and civilians. The international disgust about Libyan forces "firing on their own people" slightly misses the point. The foreign fighters aren't firing on their own people as such. They're doing what they're being paid to do, and as a result are much more likely to remain loyal to Gaddafi.

Any hopes of a relatively bloodless revolution and transition to democracy have already been dashed. Years and possibly decades of fighting, negotiations, peace plans, and international involvement now look very likely.

Egypt Tries To Stop The Dominoes Toppling

2011-01-26T14:44:00.002Z

Egypt has said it's going to ban protests against the regime of Hosni Mubarak, the long-standing autocratic ruler of that country. The decision follows several days of tense demonstrations, which in turn came after the ousting of the leader of nearby Tunisia, amid public anger over rising prices and a lack of everyday freedoms.

Mr Mubarak, and other leaders in the Arab world, will doubtless have been left very alarmed by what went on earlier this month in Tunis. In the short-term they will do what they can to prevent a 'domino effect' of regimes falling across north Africa and the Middle East, of the kind we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989. The draconian restrictions on public gatherings are, the Egyptians hope, a way of doing that without resorting to violence, in a way which will allow the momentum of the Tunisia revolt to dissipate, easing the immediate threat to the Cairo regime.

However, what happened in Tunisia may have changed the long-term politics of the region forever. Rulers such as Mubarak have long been supported by western nations, and the US in particular, because they have been seen as strongmen. Better to have a stable leader who we find a bit disasteful, the rationale goes, than a regime packed by unpredictable Islamic fundamentalists.

If attempts to establish a more democratic system in Tunisia, with a government featuring politicials from all sides, prove successful, the argument that hardline Arab leaders are the only thing preventing the region sliding into the grip of extremists will lose currency. Mubarak and the rest might have to open up a bit to retain western support, and stay in power.

Russia's Double Act Ready To Go On And On

2010-12-10T22:06:00.003Z

Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has dropped a big hint that he's planning on standing again in the next presidential election in 2012. A senior aide has told the BBC that he believes Mr Medvedev does want a second term in the job.

This is a bit of a surprise. Mr Medvedev was plucked from relative obscurity by his predecessor, Vladimir Putin, to run for office in 2008. Mr Putin was prevented from doing so by Russia's constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms. Mr Putin has since served as prime minister, but seeing as the constitution wouldn't prevent him becoming president again in 2012, it had been widely assumed that Mr Medvedev was basically marking time in The Kremlin before the real power behind the throne returned to the top job.

A former senior figure with state-owned energy giant Gazprom, Mr Medvedev has overseen an increasingly tough policy when it comes to oil and gas supplies. Indeed, he has continued the general theme of creating a strong Russia, keen to challenge rather than kowtow to the west, begun during the presidency of Mr Putin. It couldn't be more different from the Yeltsin years of the 1990s, when Russia and its economy struggled badly to adapt to the post-Soviet Union era, and its national pride took a fearful battering.

If Mr Medvedev does indeed try to stay on, it probably won't signal much of a change in that approach. Not least because Mr Putin would almost certainly have to agree that it would be a good idea. After all, Mr Medvedev doesn't appear to have much of a powerbase of his own in Russian politics and society. But if he does decide to go on and on, it would at least be a sign that Russia is now ruled more by a double act than primarily Mr Putin alone. The pair of them could dominate Moscow for a generation to come.

Midterm Setback Not All Bad For Obama

2010-11-04T16:52:00.002Z

President Obama's Democrats have suffered a series of bad results in the US midterm elections. They lost control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans, and only just managed to hang on to the Senate. The Republican politician who will be the next House Speaker, John Boehner, has said cutting spending is his top priority for the months ahead.

As bleak as the results seem for Mr Obama, there's an argument to be made that Tuesday's voting makes his re-election to the presidency in 2012 more rather than less likely. For a start, the Republicans now have to start running the country alongside the Democrats. Over the last two years, when the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, the Republicans have had few political levers to pull beyond opposing much of the Democrats' agenda. It may have given them the nickname of 'the party of no,' but it helped on Tuesday, as voters squarely blamed the Democrats for the sluggish nature of America's economic recovery.

But now they've got at least some national power back, the Republicans will have to go about actually governing instead of hurling criticism from the sidelines. This means that, if the economy continues to struggle in the coming months, the Democrats will try to force their opponents to share the blame. Also, with many Republican politicians having swept into office thanks to support from the right-wing Tea Party faction, any compromising of campaign promises in order to get laws passed could lead to a backlash against those same Republicans who are riding high for the time being. If Republicans will find it hard to go on saying no, they might find trying to govern just as difficult.

Two more elements are worth considering as we look ahead to the next presidential election. It's still two years away, and even if growth in the American economy remains slow for a good while to come, there's a good chance it'll have improved significantly by 2012. Just as Mr Obama has been blamed this week for poor economic conditions (when his name wasn't even on the ballot), you can bet he'll do everything he can to take the credit for whatever improvements we see between now and polling day.

Then there's the big choice facing Republicans, namely who their candidate will be. While the highly energised Tea Party supporters would prefer a right-winger in their own image like Sarah Palin or Jim DeMint, the Republicans' chances of winning over independent and middle-ground voters would probably be better served by picking someone more moderate, like the rather-dull-but-well-known Mitt Romney. It's difficult to see any of the potential contenders beating Mr Obama though. Yes he (probably) can, again.

Raul Castro Opens Up Cuba, Slowly

2010-09-24T22:54:00.002+01:00

Cuba is changing. President Raul Castro has revealed plans to dramatically increase private sector employment in the Communist country. Ordinary Cubans will be allowed to set up their own businesses in dozens of different fields, and even hire employees.

Mr Castro says all this is to help "continue perfecting socialism." What he really means is that the measures are to help keep him and his regime in power. Raul has always been more open-minded about this sort of thing than his brother Fidel, who he succeeded as President in 2007 when the older man's health deteriorated. It was Raul who persuaded Fidel to open the country to limited tourism in the early 1990s, when Cuba faced ruin after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the cash supply from Moscow which had seen it through the previous quarter of a century.

Although many restrictions have been placed on tourism in Cuba, even down to keeping a separate currency for foreigners, it's proved impossible to stifle the curiosity and jealousy of some locals. Those who have access to even small amounts of the special tourists' money, such as waiters and tour guides, can become far wealthier than their neighbours. Allowing western cash into Cuba may have saved the country's economy, but it has created real inequalities in its supposedly equal society.

So Raul has chosen to widen his reforms, to keep his people happy, and make the country a bit richer. He can get away with this because of his personal credibility and connection to the Revolution, something many Cubans remain proud of. Raul was there alongside his brother, Che Guevara and the rest throughout it all. With Fidel ailing, he's the only man left with the clout to carry through such reforms.

But this is also about what happens when the Castros are dead, probably not too far off now. It's likely that, without that personal connection to the Revolution, a future Cuban leader would struggle to command the country and its people in the same way the Castros have been able to. Wide-ranging reforms would have been extremely difficult to carry through without the danger of a counter-revolution, and the collapse of the Communist regime.

Raul Castro is probably banking that, if he changes Cuba just enough before he goes, he'll give his successor a better chance of keeping Cuba together, and keeping it Communist. The irony is, these latest reforms mean Cuba is becoming less and less Communist by the day.

Hotel Attack Points To Deepening Crisis In Somalia

2010-08-24T16:30:00.002+01:00

Six Somalian MPs are among at least 32 people killed in a gun and grenade attack on a hotel in the capital, Mogadishu. The Islamist group al-Shabaab has said it carried out the attack.

Today's incident is the worst outbreak of fighting since yesterday's announcement from al-Shabaab that it was beginning a new offensive against the African Union forces who have been trying to prop up the country's transitional government. The Islamists include elements of the old UIC regime, which briefly ran Somalia in 2006, until they were forced out by US-backed Ethiopian troops because of their hardline Islamist policies. Since then, the transitional government has not managed to impose much authority on Somalia, large areas of which remain more or less lawless.

The attack shows that the threat posed by al-Shabaab is perhaps even more serious than had been thought. The hotel was in one of the few areas of Mogadishu considered safe. For al-Shabaab to strike in such brazen and deadly fashion is further evidence of the group's growing strength. The notion that al-Shabaab's latest offensive could result in the complete overthrow of the transitional government, and the defeat of the African Union forces, now seems to be a definite possibility.

If that happens, the US and others who don't want to see an Islamist regime re-established in Somalia, may decide they have little choice but to intervene, perhaps once again using the Ethiopian army. The crisis in Somalia, which has been largely ignored by the rest of the world in recent years, could be about to return to the front pages.

Somalia's Islamists Strike In Uganda

2010-07-12T11:51:00.003+01:00

Dozens of people have been killed in a double bomb attack in the capital of Uganda, Kampala. A rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant were the targets of the blasts, which targeted football fans watching the World Cup final. Somalia's Islamist al-Shabaab group is already being blamed.

The al-Shabaab organisation is sometimes described as having links to al-Qaeda, although as far as we know that's only true in the sense that it shares some of the aims and philosophies of Osama bin Laden's network, rather than anything more tangible like money or weapons. It formed out of the remnants of the UIC, a hardline Islamic group which briefly ran lawless Somalia in 2006, until it was overthrown by the US-backed Ethiopian army for being rather too much like the Taliban for Washington's liking.

The decision to target an Ethiopian restaurant therefore hints at al-Shabaab being behind the Kampala attacks, as does the choice of Uganda itself, as Uganda has supplied some of the African Union forces currently trying to protect what little central government there is to speak of in Somalia.

But the most significant thing about last night's attacks are their scale. al-Shabaab has grown in strength of late, partly bolstered by cash flowing into the country through ransoms paid to Somali pirates. Last winter, al-Shabaab was linked to an attack on the man responsible for the Prophet Mohammed cartoons at his home in Denmark. If that incident suggested the group was developing the ambition and capability to strike at targets abroad, the Uganda blasts confirm that both of those factors are only increasing with time. It could once again be up to US-backed Ethiopian forces to move into al-Shabaab's heartland in rural Somalia, to try to reverse that growing strength.

Republican Split Could Help Obama's Democrats

2010-06-09T15:48:00.003+01:00

Another series of primary contests took place across the US yesterday, as voters from both main parties picked their candidates to fight various seats in Congress and Governorships in the mid-term elections this November. Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln defied predictions to win her party's nomination to defend her Senate seat, but generally incumbent politicians have been struggling.

Normally this anti-incumbency mood would be bad for the party in power, which in this case is the Democrats. They hold not just the presidency, but also comfortable majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, established Republicans are having even more trouble winning their party's nominations, as right-wing rivals emerge from the Tea Party movement to challenge them.

This is much better news for President Obama and his Democrats. While the Tea Party folks offer enough energy and enthusiasm to get their candidates selected in Republican primaries, several seem to be too right-wing to have much chance against their Democrat opponents in November. Kentucky offers a classic example, where right-winger Rand Paul beat an establishment rival to take the Republican nomination for a Senate seat, only to get quickly bogged down in a race row following some confusing comments he made about civil rights law.

This all means that several unpopular Democrats may be able to hold on to their seats in November, precisely because the Republicans have picked candidates which are too right-wing to beat them in a general election. The challenge for the Republicans is to turn the enthusiasm of the Tea Party people into votes, and that could prove to be a tougher political test than anything the Democrats face.

Court Eases Tensions In Zimbabwe

2010-05-11T12:10:00.002+01:00

A court in Zimbabwe has acquitted a senior figure in the Movement for Democratic Change of terrorism charges. Former white farmer Roy Bennett is the treasurer-general of the MDC party, which is engaged in a fractious power-sharing arrangement with the Zanu-PF party of Robert Mugabe. The charges against Mr Bennett has been one of the main sources of tension between the two sides, but a judge threw the case out yesterday saying there wasn't enough evidence.

This is an important decision, because it shows that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is independent. The charges against Mr Bennett may have been trumped up by Zanu-PF sympathisers in the police and prosecution service, but the fact the case got nowhere in the courts suggests they may think again before bringing such politically motivated cases in the future.

If the judiciary in Zimbabwe can remain independent and stable, that makes it more likely other institutions will start to display the same qualities. Many have long been in the grip of Zanu-PF, with newspaper editors, police chiefs and plenty of others too frightened for their own futures to do anything other than Mr Mugabe's bidding. This visible independence of Zimbabwe's courts is therefore not just a step forward for the country's legal system, but for its wider democracy. Little by little, Zimbabwe is recovering.

Suicide Bombers Return To Moscow

2010-03-29T15:51:00.002+01:00

Two suicide attacks have been carried out on the Moscow underground. Dozens of people have been reported killed. It's believed the bombers were women, and suspicion has already fallen on Chechen terrorists.

The choice of one of the targets in particular is significant. One of the explosions hit the station underneath the Lubyanka, the infamous former home of the Soviet secret service, the KGB, and still used by its successor, the FSB. The message from whoever was behind the attacks is clear enough. Nowhere in Russia, not even important buildings belonging to the central government, is safe.

There are plenty of reasons for assuming this is the work of the Chechens. First, women were involved, as they were in attacks on the Moscow underground and two airliners back in 2004 (around the same time as the Beslan Massacre). Those incidents were blamed on the so-called 'Black Widows' of Chechen soldiers killed fighting the Russians. Also, the Russian military has recently had a series of succeses in its campaign against Islamic separatists fighting in Chechnya and nearby republics, so it was a timely moment for the rebels to show they're still capable of striking back. One of the main websites used by Chechens, Kavkaz Center, is already repeating a familiar allegation, that the attacks were in fact false flag operations carried out by the Russian security services themselves.

As for what happens next, history tells us the Chechens will probably have more spectacular attacks planned. Despite the inevitable tightening of security across Russia, the country and its transport infrastructure is so vast, it will be almost impossible for the Kremlin to protect every possible target. Instead, expect President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin to order high-profile military retaliations in and around Chechnya, to shore up both public confidence, and their own reputations.

Ganic Arrest Shows That Serbia Remembers The Past, Too

2010-03-01T20:04:00.002Z

A former senior Bosnian politician, Ejup Ganic, has been arrested at Heathrow Airport over alleged war crimes. A warrant for his extradition had been issued by Serbia, in relation to an attack on Yugoslav Army forces in Sarajevo at the start of the 1992-95 war. Mr Ganic has appeared in court, and it's now up to Serbia to produce evidence supporting its extradition request before anything more can happen.

First, the incident itself. Back in 1992, when Bosnia declared independence and was suddenly at war with what remained of Yugoslavia, one early problem was the presence of Yugoslav Army soldiers who had been based in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo. A deal was agreed allowing them to be escorted out of the city by UN peacekeepers to a nearby Serb-controlled area. But hours before this was due to happen, rumours spread that the Bosnian Muslim political leader Alija Izetbegovic had been arrested by Bosnian Serb forces. Bosnian Muslims then ambushed the Yugoslav Army column on Sarajevo's Dobrovoljacka Street.

That much is more or less agreed on. But, as always when discussing the Balkan War, there are differences of opinion about the numbers. Serbia claims more than 40 soldiers were killed, the Bosnians say it was much less. Serbia also alleges that some of those dead soldiers had been wounded in the initial ambush, and were executed later. The charge facing Mr Ganic is that he helped organise this, something he denies. He's the most senior of 19 Bosnian officials who were recently charged by a Serbian court over the incident.

We don't know what evidence Serbia has got, so it's difficult to say whether Mr Ganic or anybody else will ever stand trial. But what we can say is that Serbia is doing its best to correct the record of history a bit. With the war crimes case against ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic resuming in The Hague today, Serbia is taking the opportunity to remind us that it wasn't the only side which did bad things during the war. Just as importantly, political and judicial leaders in Belgrade want to remind their own public that they've not forgotten about events which remain controversial and painful for many Serbs. Serbia is fed up being the villain.

Victory For Viktor As Ukraine's Future Is No Longer Orange

2010-02-11T16:27:00.004Z

Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is trying to carry on as normal, despite her apparent defeat in Sunday's presidential election. It appears she may try to challenge the official result, which gave victory to Viktor Yanukovych. But with international observers saying the election was fair, her hopes of getting the outcome changed seem remote.

Don't be surprised if these names ring a vague bell with you. Five years ago it was these two politicians, along with the outgoing President, Viktor Yuschenko, who were at the centre of events surrounding the so-called Orange Revolution. Then, the pro-Russia Mr Yanukovych won a blatantly rigged vote. After widespread public protests, a new vote was held, won comfortably by the pro-Western Mr Yuschenko, with Mrs Tymoshenko at his side. Russia fumed as another of the former Soviet states moved away from Moscow's influence towards Europe and the West.

But although the future seemed bright, the Orange Revolution turned sour. Unsurprisingly, Mr Yuschenko's years in power have been marked by worsening relations with Russia, including high-profile battles over energy supplies. Yet there's also been growing frustration in Western countries, and among Mr Yuschenko's own supporters, at his failure to actually get things done in office. He didn't follow through on his promises to tackle corruption, nor did he adequately deal with the bitterness and domestic political deadlock that was the legacy of the Orange Revolution. Perhaps most devastatingly, he failed to find a way of setting Ukraine on a path to EU membership. He leaves office humiliated, having finished a distant fifth in the first round of presidential voting last month.

So, now the Kremlin has finally got its man, we can expect Ukraine to edge back towards what diplomats call Russia's "sphere of influence." This is an old-fashioned phrase which basically means Ukraine will be friendly towards Moscow. Those arguments about energy pipelines and suchlike should be replaced by extra trade with Russia and other regional allies, such as Belarus. But Mr Yanukovych can't afford to simply do whatever Russia wants. There are plenty of businesses in Ukraine which depend on trade with the EU and the West, and he'll have to defend their interests too if he's serious about dragging Ukraine out of its current deep economic crisis. If people still can't find jobs or put food on the table, the novelty of a new government will soon wear off. It's time for Mr Yanukovych to get to work.

No Closer To A Deal In Cyprus

2010-02-01T08:53:00.002Z

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has arrived in Cyprus, as he attempts to put new life into efforts to solve one of Europe's longest-running disputes. The latest round of peace talks have been taking place for more than a year, but the problems which have split the island in two go back decades.

To sum it up briefly, Cyprus used to be part of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey), until it became part of the British Empire. Most of the people in Cyprus are Greek, and during the 1950s an insurgency aimed at overthrowing British rule and uniting Cyprus with Greece took place, ending in a deal which led to Cyprus becoming independent, something neither the Greeks nor the Turks especially wanted. Later, as the Turkish government began to worry that Greece was moving to bring Cyprus under its control, it invaded the north of the country, where most of the Turks lived. That was 36 years ago, and all that time there have been two Cypruses, the Greek in the south and the Turkish in the north, and that hasn't made anyone particularly happy, either.

There have been various attempts to thrash out some kind of better deal since, but all have failed. This latest round of talks had seemed more likely to succeed than most, not least because the political leaders of both communities in Cyprus seemed keen on it. But enough members of their electorates are not for keen for the talks to be fraught with political risk, and the Turkish-Cypriot leader seems likely to lose an election in April to a hardliner. So if there's going to be progress, it needs to be in the next few weeks, which is why Mr Ban is in town. But he's no miracle-worker, the chances of a significant breakthrough remain very remote.

Earthquake Is A Devastating Setback For Haiti

2010-01-14T13:25:00.003Z

Tens of thousands of people are now thought to have died in the earthquake which struck the Caribbean nation of Haiti. Despite offers of help from around the world, rescue efforts have been hindered by a lack of infrastructure in what is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

Aside from the terrible human cost, this is a setback Haiti will struggle to recover from. There were high hopes back in 1986 when a popular uprising finally overthrew the dictatorship of Baby Doc Duvalier, but in the years since a mixture of abortive elections, coups and regular violence has meant Haiti has been so unstable, the lives of its citizens haven't improved all that much.

Or at least that was the case until recently. With former President Clinton on board as US special envoy, and following the decision of Haiti's debtors to write off huge amounts of money the country was never going to be able to pay back, things finally seemed to be looking up. And then the quake hit. Once Haitians get over the initial shock of this terrible natural disaster, they must hope that the world doesn't just repair the damage, but also commits to helping the government build the kind of society that just didn't exist there before. If that doesn't happen, Haiti will go on being the worst of the west.

The Terror Threat From Somalia And Yemen

2010-01-02T13:30:00.003Z

Two failed attacks, both apparently carried out by alleged Islamist terrorists, have featured prominently in global headlines over Christmas and New Year. On Christmas Day, a Nigerian man is suspected of trying to blow up a plane as it landed at Detroit. The US now says the suspect has links to an al-Qaeda group in Yemen. And in Denmark, a man with alleged ties to Somalian Islamist group al-Shabaab broke into the home of the artist responsible for the infamous Prophet Mohammed cartoons. The man has now been charged with attempted manslaughter.

And so, Yemen and Somalia are suddenly back on the radar of world leaders, with phrases such as 'incubators of terrorism' being bandied around. We're more used to hearing that sort of thing in relation to Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan, where there was also a recent deadly terrorist attack during a volleyball game. The arguments about how to deal with the security problems in those countries are often debated, but how western countries might deal with the threat posed by terrorist groups operating out of Yemen and Somalia hasn't received much public discussion in recent years. The recent attacks mean that will surely now change, but there seem to be even fewer potential solutions than there are for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Somalia's al-Shabaab formed out of the remnants of the UIC, a Taliban-style Islamist group which briefly ruled Somalia in 2006 until it was overthrown by US-backed Ethiopian forces for, well, being a bit too much like the Taliban. Since then, there's been little central government to speak of in Somalia, which is why pirates have been able to operate with such impunity from Somali ports. Some of the pirates' cash ends up going to al-Shabaab, and the Danish incident demonstrates it now has both the ability and willingness to attempt terrorist attacks abroad. If further international attacks take place, the US may be forced to turn once again to its Ethiopian allies for help in fighting al-Shabaab, the deployment of US troops to Somalia being still far too sensitive a subject following the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.

As for Yemen, there is at least a central government, and the US has given it tens of millions of aid dollars to help root out terrorists since the attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbour in 2000. Following the failed Christmas Day bombing in Detroit, expect more help for the Yemeni authorities, including more US drones flying over remote parts of the country in an attempt to find terrorist hideouts. The solution to the Yemen problem may be a little more straightforward than that in Somalia, but the potential scale of the Detroit attack shows that al-Qaeda in Yemen already has the ambition to strike at major targets in the US homeland. The Obama administration knows it must act quickly in Yemen before the next terrorist plot becomes a reality.

Another Embarrassing Failure For Russia's New Missile

2009-12-10T20:42:00.002Z

Some lights in the night sky over Norway caused a bit of confusion earlier today. Despite excited suggestions a UFO or Santa Claus himself might have been to blame, the truth is a bit less thrilling. It was the latest failed test of Russia's new nuclear missile system, the Bulava.

It's thought to be the 13th time the missile's failed to work. To say this is embarrassing for the country's leaders in the Kremlin is putting it mildly. Russia has invested a fortune in the Bulava in recent years as it strives to update its ageing Soviet-era military hardware. The Russians are also working on a new fleet of nuclear submarines to carry the Bulava. So, it has to work.

But the Bulava's success isn't just a matter of getting value for the Kremlin's money. It's more a question of Russian national prestige. The reputation of the Russian military took a big hit almost a decade ago when the decrepit Kursk submarine sank with all hands. Since then, Russia's President (and now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin has tried to win popularity at home and gain respect (and concessions) abroad by building up Russia's strength in various ways reminiscent of how the USSR used to behave. The Bulava project is part of the military aspect of that strategy. Unless it can be made to work soon, both the Kremlin and Mr Putin personally, will start to look pretty foolish, and that's something they're desperate to avoid.

The Big Question In Afghanistan Is What Happens After 2011

2009-12-02T21:48:00.002Z

President Obama has finally made his long-awaited announcement on the future of US strategy in Afghanistan. He's sending an extra 30,000 American troops, with the health warning that they will begin to withdraw in 2011. The decision has met with a sceptical response in Afghanistan itself.

The stated aim of the western military involvement in Afghanistan is to fight Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies, and make it harder for Islamist terrorists to attack targets in the west. One of the major criticisms of the increased western involvement in recent months is that now the troops are focusing not just on fighting the west's enemies, but also on trying to protect and strengthen the Afghan government (which, as the controversial recent election showed, is widely corrupt). Critics call it 'mission creep' and accuse Mr Obama and others of trying to find new reasons to justify their involvement in Afghanistan, when they should have pulled out already.

That's believed to be the view of the US Vice-President, Joe Biden. But for leaders like Mr Obama and Gordon Brown, there's more to consider, namely what'll happen when the western troops withdraw. Now that Mr Obama has named 2011 as the start of the end of the mission (as an answer to one of the big criticisms of America's mission in Iraq, namely that there was no exit strategy), that deadline will dominate the way all interested parties act in Afghanistan. And it may end up to the Taliban's advantage.

The Taliban now knows that, if it can avoid complete obliteration over the next couple of years (with help from sympathisers in Pakistan, this shouldn't be a problem), the western troops will go home. Then it can take on the Afghan government. The Taliban did exactly that when it initially seized power in Afghanistan back in 1996. It was a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in which Al Qaeda harboured and trained the terrorists which carried out 9/11.

So, if the US and its allies are unable to help the Afghan government improve its security capabilities sufficiently in the coming months, there could be big trouble ahead. Leaving Afghanistan in 2011 might suit short-term western political opinion, but if the Taliban is able to regain control once the Americans have left, it would probably allow Al Qaeda the opportunity to strengthen, and therefore make a spectacular attack on the US or Europe far more likely. Although it may cause an increase in the human cost in terms of American, British and other international lives, spending the time between now and 2011 putting the Afghans in a position to defeat the Taliban is essential to the ultimate success of the west's mission.

A Bit Of Rompuy Pumpy

2009-11-21T00:15:00.003Z

We now know who the EU's first president is going to be. It's Belgium's Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy. There's also going to be a new EU foreign policy chief, in the form of Britain's Cathy Ashton. Better-known candidates for the top job, such as Tony Blair, faded out of contention as the EU's 27 leaders got together to decide who should get the positions.

These jobs have been created as part of the Lisbon Treaty, which has now been ratified by all 27 member countries. The idea of them is to help the EU interact in a more effective way with the rest of the world. In future, instead of a mishmash of different signals from the various national leaders, we should all get a clearer idea of what the EU's view on a particular topic is, whether that's trade or a humanitarian intervention. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.

But you'll notice that neither Mr Van Rompuy or Baroness Ashton are household names. Mr Van Rompuy wasn't even elected Belgian Prime Minister, he was appointed by the king to try to solve a constitutional crisis. For her part, Baroness Ashton has never been elected to anything, and until today was not even the most famous person in her family (her husband is the YouGov pollster Peter Kellner).

On the face of it, it does appear strange that the EU should select such little-known political figures to be its leaders. It's hardly going to impress the Americans, the Chinese or anyone else. But the main reason is simple, the leaders of the different countries don't want to give up any of their power if they can avoid it. A high-profile figure such as Mr Blair would have quickly dominated the EU's international activities, using his contacts in foreign capitals to take control of the union's external policy. Mr Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton are much more likely to do what they're told, particularly by the leaders of France and Germany, who blocked Mr Blair's candidacy. Expect EU foreign policy to be set primarily in Paris and Berlin, rather than Brussels.

In Iraq, It's Still All About The Oil

2009-11-09T13:26:00.001Z

A date's been set for Iraq's general election. It'll be held early next year, on January 21st. There's been a hold up in announcing the final date because of disagreement over the status of the city of Kirkuk. Although a deal's finally been reached, the row offers a glimpse of how the politics of Iraq will shape up after the Americans and the rest have gone. Unsurprisingly, it's all about oil.

About 8 percent of the world's oil is under Iraq. And an awful lot of that is in the north of the country, the mainly Kurdish area of which Kirkuk is the traditional capital. Various ethnic groups have been drawn to the city over the last century, most notably when Arabs were resettled there by Saddam Hussein during the 1980s in an attempt to keep his Kurdish enemies at bay. Since he was ousted in 2003, Kurds have been flooding back again. So now we have a multi-ethnic city in an unstable country with a lot of oil underneath it. No prizes for guessing why this might be problematic.

The dispute was that the Arabs wanted to stick to the 2004 electoral roll (which would favour them) while the Kurds wanted a new one (which would favour them). The compromise is that a parliamentary committee will monitor the election results and, if those aren't in line with the expected demographics, they could be challenged. Ultimately, this should help ensure all of the ethnic groups are adequately represented as the future of Kirkuk (and its oil) is decided.

This deal has done little more than buy some time. Disagreements between the Kurds, Arabs and other interested parties will probably flare up again when the really tough decisions finally have to be made. But, although it sounds worryingly familiar that this dispute is all about oil, the fact that all sides have managed to make a (so far) peaceful compromise at least offers a bit of hope for the future of Iraqi politics.

Paying The Taliban To Switch Sides

2009-10-28T13:45:00.002Z

President Obama is signing into a law a new bill which, among other things, includes a provision allowing the US to offer Taliban fighters money to put down their weapons and leave the insurgency in Afghanistan. This follows a similar scheme which operated with some success in Iraq. The idea is that ex-insurgents will be paid to defend their towns instead of attack them, and once the war is over will easily fit back into whatever passes for normal society.

This is another triumph for pragmatism over ideology in America's approach. If the promise of democracy and freedom isn't enough to convince Afghans to leave the Taliban, then the promise of a few quid and a steady job might be. It makes a bit of a mockery of the past rhetoric of US politicians including President Bush, which has often had a sort of 'our society is better than yours, we're giving it to you and you should be grateful for it' undercurrent to it.

But it would be wrong to assume the Obama people are the first to realise that hard cash might be more effective than western dogma in Afghanistan. In October 2001, the US bombing of Taliban positions initially had little obvious effect. Changing tack, the CIA quickly despatched operatives to Afghanistan with suitcases full of dollars, to literally buy off individual tribal leaders and warlords, getting them to stop supporting the Taliban. Only then did the US-backed offensive start to make any progress. This latest policy of the Obama administration helps show us that, for all of the west's efforts in Afghanistan since 2001, there's still an awful lot that hasn't changed at all.

Here's Some Money, Now Make The Problem Go Away

2009-10-21T23:33:00.003+01:00

The US has agreed to supply military equipment to the army of Mali in north Africa, to help them fight Islamist extremists. The Malians are getting about five million dollars worth of stuff, in addition to assistance already being offered by neighbouring Algeria and Libya. They're up against a group calling itself Al Qaeda In The Islamic Maghreb, which has carried out dozens of attacks in the area over the last couple of years, including the capture and murder of Briton Edwin Dyer.

If five million dollars doesn't sound like a lot to you, well, you're right, it's not. Or at least it isn't that much in the context of global military resources. The reason the US doesn't feel the need to break the bank to help is that this particular wing of Al Qaeda is small, with maybe only a few hundred members at most. It emerged from the a much larger force of Algerian Islamists which spent most of the 90s fighting a civil war in that country, after a Muslim party was denied certain victory in an election by government chicanery.

That conflict died down years ago, but the radical strain of Islam has lived on through this small group of extremists, who allied themselves to Al Qaeda in 2007. This was basically an attempt to make themselves look big and important, in the hope they'd get more money and assistance from other Islamists elsewhere in the world. It's possible that this has actually happened, because the group has been able to carry out the odd notable terrorist incident since then. This is what has got America's attention.

You might wonder why the US would bother sending any money at all to deal with such an apparently insignificant enemy, so far away from home. Yet Washington knows it's just possible an American citizen or citizens could end up suffering the same fate as Edwin Dyer, and doesn't want to take the chance. By giving Mali money and equipment only, the US is accepting none of the risk of the security operation, but should get the reward that at least an attack against Americans becomes a more remote possibility. To the folks in the State Department, that's well worth five million dollars.

Football Diplomacy Helps Turkey And Armenia Move On

2009-10-14T17:39:00.000+01:00

The presidents of Turkey and Armenia will tonight attend a World Cup qualifying match between the countries. Nothing unusual about that on the face of it, until you consider the bitterness which has existed between the two peoples since hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by Turkey's predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, during and just after the First World War. Whether or not the killings can be called a genocide is one of many contentious issues which is still unresolved, but the good news is that both nations are at last moving forward politically.

A deal was recently agreed so Turkey and Armenia could finally establish diplomatic ties, and allowing the border between the countries to be re-opened. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there to witness the signing of the accord, and no wonder, because the surprisingly large Armenian population of her own country (the Armenian diaspora is one of the world's most widely spread, partly because of the killings) has put plenty of pressure on Congress and forced the issue onto her agenda. Although many Armenians around the world were bitterly disappointed the deal didn't include a Turkish admission of genocide, there are plenty within Armenia itself who will now have opportunities that didn't exist before it was signed.

As is so often the case, this diplomacy comes down to money. Armenia is a poor country, and is right next to Turkey, which is the world's 17th largest economy. Armenian businessmen want to leave the past in the past and get on with trading with their neighbour and, through it, the world. The Turks meanwhile want to join the EU one day, and know that would not be possible without better relations with the Armenians. These economic and political forces have been helped along by the apparent personal chemistry between the two presidents, who first appeared together at last year's qualifier between the two nations in Armenia. That started the final round of diplomacy which has led to the deal and could, in time, help bring Turkey and Armenia closer to the rest of Europe.

Why Giving The Nobel Peace Prize To Obama Is A Disgrace

2009-10-09T11:56:00.000+01:00

US President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though he's only been in office for eight and a half months, and has failed in that time to bring peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, the Nobel committee praised his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy." The decision was a big surprise. Most observers had expected Zimbabwe's long-time opposition leader and now Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, to win.

Even Mr Obama himself must be embarrassed. He has made domestic matters the main focus of his short presidency so far, and has yet to achieve anything like a major foreign policy success. But then the decision has nothing to do with making peace, and everything to do with politics. The Nobel committee is trying too hard to appear right-on, and has rewarded Mr Obama for little more than some encouraging speeches. Sadly, it further erodes the credibility of the prize, which suffered two years ago when Al Gore won for similar reasons.

It's interesting to draw a contrast with last year's winner of the prize, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari. He's spent years in different parts of the world carrying out the dull, frustrating, unglamorous work of peacemaking, in places such as Kosovo, Indonesia and even Northern Ireland. Getting once-bitter enemies to agree on contentious issues is a skill he has often demonstrated, and it is that skill which offered genuine hope to the people of those troubled areas.

Mr Obama often talks about hope, and there's no doubt his charisma and rhetoric has inspired folks around the world. But if he's going to prove himself a worthy winner of the Nobel Prize, just talking about hope isn't going to cut it. He needs to follow the example of Mr Ahtisaari. And if President Obama goes along with the advice of his generals and sends an extra 40,000 troops to Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the decision to give him the Nobel Peace Prize so prematurely will look even more ridiculous.

Syria Edges In From The Cold

2009-10-07T18:18:00.001+01:00

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is holding talks in Damascus with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The two countries had a big falling out a few years ago when the Saudi-backed Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri was assassinated, apparently on Syria's orders. The dispute between these two major regional players has hindered efforts to solve problems such as Israel/Palestine, Iran's nuclear ambitions and the security crisis in Iraq.

Just talking a bit isn't going to do much to tackle those big issues, but this sort of meeting can only be a positive sign for western governments. If the US and the west in general is going to improve the stability of the Middle East, it's important to have the major Arab governments agreeing with each other rather than not. For example, Syria has sway over groups such as Hizbollah, which it supports financially, and to a lesser extent Hamas. No meaningful peace is possible in the Middle East without the approval of those groups, and so there can be no 'peace process' worthy of the name without the support of Syria, and indeed the rest of the Arab countries.

How far Syria might go in co-operating with anyone, let alone the west, is difficult to say. After the death of Assad's father, the hardline Hafez al-Assad, back in 2000, there was an expectation that Syria would become more pro-western. But despite the odd hint, and the fear in Damascus immediately following the invasion of Iraq that it could be next on America's list, the Ba'athist regime in Syria remains more focused on acting in its own interests and ensuring its own survival. However, with most of the elder Assad's old cronies now gone from the Syrian political scene, it's possible this latest step by Assad junior might be a sign of warmer international relations to come. Just don't bet on it.

Ireland Says Yes, And EU Expansion Could Follow

2009-10-04T16:52:00.002+01:00

At the second time of asking, voters in Ireland have approved the EU's Lisbon Treaty. The treaty is supposed to make the EU run more smoothly, now that it has 27 members. Ireland is the only country which has held a referendum on the treaty, because the Irish constitution states that it has to. The treaty would probably be voted down if many other countries held similar polls, but that's not really important, because all the other EU governments are merely approving the treaty in their parliaments. That process should be complete by the end of this year.

One of the consequences of adopting the treaty is that the EU will expand further. The simpler decision-making processes that the treaty will introduce should make this traditionally tortuous process a bit easier. Countries keen to join as soon as possible include the next most likely entrant, Croatia, which is moving closer after apparently resolving a border dispute with Slovenia. After Croatia, there are other Balkan countries to consider, including Bosnia and Serbia.

For years it has seemed that those nations would ultimately be admitted into the EU once the remaining outstanding details of the 1992-95 war were resolved, such as the war criminals who remain at large. But both Bosnia and Serbia face considerable other problems. For Bosnia, the main issue is trying to get the two halves of the country (it was split into a Muslim-Croat part and a Serb part by the Dayton peace deal) to work together. After a series of disagreements between the two administrations, an international conference has been called for this Friday in Sarajevo to try to sort it out. Without political harmony across the whole of its territory, Bosnia's hopes of EU entry will remain distant.

Serbia's position is probably worse. Serb nationalism remains a potent and, in the west at least, a largely underestimated factor. There are still significant elements within Serbia which would rather the country was allied more closely with its traditional friend Russia than join the EU. Recent large-scale job losses have helped lead to dissatisfaction with the (still newish) pro-western and pro-EU government in Belgrade. Also, the recent cancellation of a planned gay pride event in fear of violence from right-wing groups has acted as a reminder that, socially, Serbia is not yet the sort of modern, forward-looking country the EU would like to welcome into the union.

There is a significant move forward coming up in January, though. Serbian citizens are expected to be given the right to travel to the rest of the EU without a visa, a privilege they last enjoyed when they were part of Yugoslavia. The fact that Serbs have not been allowed to move easily throughout Europe in recent years has helped stoke resentment against the EU. Removing that barrier could help make sure Serbia, and its people, see their future in Europe and not elsewhere.

Embarrassment For Obama As Rio Beats Chicago

2009-10-02T18:09:00.001+01:00

Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic Games. It beat Madrid, Tokyo and the favourites, Chicago, in the vote among International Olympic Committee members in Copenhagen. It's the first time a city from South America has been chosen to hold the Games. To disbelief in the Windy City, Chicago was earlier knocked out in the first round of voting, despite the personal support of President Obama who had travelled to Denmark to make a personal pitch on behalf of a city he has a close association with.

Although it's a bit of a shock that Chicago lost so badly, the IOC has a long history of surprising decisions. One possible reason for Chicago's defeat could be tactical voting, a fate that befell the much-fancied Toronto bid for the 1996 Olympics. Many of the city's supporters within the IOC apparently lent their votes to Atlanta in an attempt to knock Athens out of the running, a tactic that backfired badly when it was Toronto that exited the contest.

However, a more likely explanation for Rio's victory and Chicago's defeat is the differing involvements of the presidents of Brazil and the US. President Obama's late decision to spend some of his political capital in backing Chicago in person has gained most of the media's attention in the build-up to today's vote. But President Lula of Brazil has been lobbying on behalf of Rio, around the world, for the last two years. The members of the IOC have presumably been impressed by his support for Rio over such a long time. No matter how popular Mr Obama may be, he's been able to devote much less time to helping Chicago since taking office. That might well have proved the deciding factor.

Chicago Plays The Obama Card

2009-09-28T17:28:00.000+01:00

It's that time again. Four years after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics, the members of the International Olympic Committee meet later this week in Copenhagen to decide where the 2016 Games will be held. The contenders are Chicago, Madrid, Rio and Tokyo. It's another strong field, and appears evenly matched. Or at least it did, until Chicago played what it hopes will be its trump card, President Obama. He's agreed to go to Denmark to personally support Chicago's bid.

The process of deciding which city gets to host the Olympics is still pretty mysterious, with the voting almost as secretive as a Papal conclave. The different cities don't really bid for the Games in the traditional sense anymore, the whole process is far more like a campaign, with all the tools of spin and PR familiar from the world of politics. And this is where politicians themselves come in.

The people trying to win the Games for each city don't really know which part of their campaign could make the difference. Will it be the technical specifications of the venues? The success of the IOC members' visit to the city? How about the transport links? Any of these might prove crucial, after all, in 2005 London only defeated Paris by a mere three votes.

But if there is one aspect to modern Olympic bids that everyone seems to agree is significant, it's the personal support of political leaders. Tony Blair put his weight firmly behind London four years ago, and more recently Vladimir Putin did the same for Sochi's successful Winter Olympics bid. Although the bitter rows about healthcare and other policies may have taken some of the shine off Mr Obama's image in the US, he remains hugely popular internationally, and the Chicago bid team will hope his gladhanding of IOC members in Copenhagen seals the deal for them. If Chicago wins, it'll be Obama wot won it.

Merkel Wins Despite The Recession

2009-09-27T18:30:00.000+01:00

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has won a second term in office. Not just that, but the scale of the victory of her CDU party means she'll be able to rule the country in a coalition with another right-leaning party from now on. For the last four years she's been forced to share power with the centre-left SPD, but after that party suffered its worst post-war election result, Frau Merkel doesn't need them anymore.

On the face of it, this is a big surprise. Governments are supposed to lose elections when times are hard, as has happened in the US and Japan lately. To not only win, but win by a bigger margin, is a remarkable achievement for Frau Merkel and the CDU. So what's going on?

Well, the recession's been just as bad in Germany as anywhere else, so it's not that. Rather, it seems to be a personal vote of confidence in Frau Merkel's confident but low-key leadership style. She was once criticised for being too dull and too provincial (she grew up in the old East Germany), but her pragmatic, sensible shoes approach has gone down well with voters during these difficult times. She also achieved the notable success of making sure German carmaker Opel was sold by General Motors to her preferred bidder, the Canadian firm Magna, which could help save German jobs in the long run.

Curiously, a similar sort of pragmatic approach hasn't done Gordon Brown much good in recent months. But then, in contrast to Frau Merkel, his personal reputation appears shattered beyond repair with most British voters. Don't expect him to be able to match Frau Merkel's achievement in next year's general election.

Obama's Big Decision On Afghanistan

2009-09-26T12:18:00.003+01:00

President Obama has got to decide whether to send yet more troops to Afghanistan. That's after the American commander of NATO forces in the country made a formal request for backup, thought to be around 30,000 extra personnel. In a report that was recently leaked, General Stanley McChrystal commented that the west's mission in Afghanistan would probably fail unless more troops were sent to bolster the force.

Mr Obama must be thinking that it wasn't supposed to be like this. A year and more ago, when he was still just a candidate running for the top job, it was easy to say that President Bush had done the wrong thing in focusing on Iraq to the exclusion of Afghanistan, and that a President Obama would change that. Iraq bad, Afghanistan good.

But now he's in the Oval Office, Mr Obama is being forced to see things from a different perspective. It's a well-worn cliche to say that Afghanistan is a graveyard of armies. But it's true enough, from Britain's various wars in the country during the 19th and early 20th century, to the Soviet Union's ill-fated occupation of the 1980s. Now that the Americans and NATO are in, they've realised that more resources are needed to do the job, otherwise they will join the long list of defeated military forces which were forced to leave Afghanistan.

So President Obama's choice is this. The first option would be to accept that the mission will never achieve its objectives, and announce plans to begin to pull out. This would probably be welcomed by some of America's NATO allies (like Italy), which are only now beginning to suffer the kind of casualties all too familiar to the US and Britain. But it would be a tough sell to the American people. After all the US doesn't like losing, and defeat in Afghanistan would be seen by many as defeat at the hands of those who attacked the US on 9/11.

The other option is to give General McChrystal what he wants, and commit to Afghanistan for the long haul. This is also a tough sell to both America's NATO allies and the American people, because the cost in terms of both lives and money may well be huge. In some ways this would be a far riskier option, because there are so many difficult-to-predict aspects of the Afghan issue which could have a major impact, such as the stability of the apparently corrupt Afghan government and the security situation in Pakistan next door. If Mr Obama takes this choice, he will be trusting to luck as well as the abilities of his military forces.

Stalemate In The Middle East

2009-09-24T17:07:00.001+01:00

The leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have demanded that the other change their position before proper negotiations about a peace deal can take place. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas were talking separately after a meeting with President Obama in New York on Tuesday, a meeting that appears to have achieved absolutely nothing.

Not that it was expected to. For decades the world has looked to the US President to push things forward in the Israel/Palestine conflict. This is because the US is by far Israel's biggest ally and supporter, and so the US President is just about the only outside person the Israeli government generally listens to. Some presidents have spent more time on this issue than others, but usually most of them at least attempt to make some sort of progress, even George W Bush had his ill-fated 'roadmap' to peace, which sadly proved about as effective as a broken satnav.

Barack Obama may yet devote time and energy to the problem, but he's got plenty of other issues to deal with just now. Healthcare is the main one. There's also Afghanistan. So not much of a look in for Israel/Palestine, and with the hardline Mr Netanyahu telling anyone who'll listen that the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is by far the most important threat to Israel, there doesn't seem to be much desire from the Israeli side to get down to some serious talking with the Palestinians. As for Mr Abbas, he doesn't speak for Hamas which runs the Gaza Strip, so he can hardly claim to represent the whole Palestinian population. So with the focus of the main players firmly elsewhere, don't expect much progress towards restarting the seemingly never ending 'peace process' for some time yet.

The Clearstream Affair Reaches Court

2009-09-22T00:01:00.000+01:00

It's been an important day in the so-called Clearstream Affair, a scandal which goes right to the top of French politics. The trial of former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has begun (he also used to be foreign minister, you might his performances at the UN as a leading critic of the rush to war in Iraq back in 2003). He's accused of plotting to discredit the current President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in an attempt to harm his chances of winning the 2007 presidential election.

So, where to begin with this murky tale. The first thing to know is that M de Villepin and M Sarkozy were bitter rivals, and both wanted to replace Jacques Chirac as President in 2007. Although M de Villepin was M Chirac's choice, it was clear that M Sarkozy was much more popular with the public, and would surely win unless some scandal derailed him. Just such a scandal apparently came along when M Sarkozy's name was included on a secret list of prominent people who had accounts with a Luxembourg bank (Clearstream) and who had allegedly taken bribes relating to international arms sales. However, it quickly turned out the list was a hoax. The question that has been at the centre of the scandal ever since is: was M de Villepin involved in the forgery?

M de Villepin denies the charges against him, and he seemed typically unruffled as his trial began earlier, even though he faces prison if found guilty. He says the authorities have pursued him so doggedly over the last couple of years purely because of M Sarkozy's hatred of him. However, while all this is great theatre, it's unlikely to change the political situation in France very much. M Sarkozy won the election, which basically means M de Villepin's political career is over anyway. And as M Sarkozy seems to be the innocent party in the Clearstream affair, it's difficult to see how any information that comes to light during the trial could damage him. All the more reason for him to enjoy watching his old rival squirm in the dock.

Indonesia's Islamists On Their Uppers

2009-09-19T21:03:00.000+01:00

Police in Indonesia say the country's most wanted Islamist terrorist leader, Noordin Mohamed Top, is dead. He was wanted for a series of attacks in recent years, in what is the world's most populated Muslim country. Noordin was killed during a police raid on Thursday.

First a bit of background. Noordin used to be a member of Jemaah Islamiah, a group of Muslim extremists which wants to create an Islamic state covering much of south-east Asia. The group is most notorious for carrying out the 2002 Bali bombing, and although Noordin's not thought to have been directly involved in that atrocity, he has been blamed for other attacks carried out by JI and by his own even more extreme splinter group.

So, his death is a major victory for Indonesia's security forces. In fact, it's the latest in a series of victories for them. Several leading JI figures have been arrested or killed. It's also been affected by splits, such as the breakaway initiated by Noordin. All of this has made the group far less of a threat than it was back in 2002. The lesson here is that putting sustained pressure on a terrorist organisation is still the best way for security services to get the upper hand. It can be an expensive business requiring patience and skill, but the Indonesians have proved that such efforts can bring rewards.

For Obama, Afghanistan Is More Important Than A Missile Shield

2009-09-18T10:21:00.003+01:00

President Obama's decision to abandon US plans for a missile defence shield in eastern Europe has made big news around the world over the last couple of days. The shield would have involved putting facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic from where any missiles heading towards western Europe or the US could have been shot down. The official reason for getting rid of the scheme is that Iran, purportedly the likeliest place from which those missiles might have been launched at the west, isn't as far ahead in its weapons development as had been thought.

As is usually the case in international diplomacy though, that's not the real reason for Mr Obama's decision. In fact, there are plenty of reasons, and the decision has all sorts of consequences which may not be immediately obvious. But the main theme is the sense that Afghanistan is now by far the most important international challenge facing the US, and all its foreign policy decisions are made in that context. In weighing up whether to go ahead with the shield or not, Mr Obama will have thought hard about the impact the decision would have on Afghanistan.

It's been widely said that the decision to scrap the scheme will ease tensions between the US and Russia. This is important because the US needs Russia's help in Afghanistan, and will do for years and probably decades to come. In the short-term, Moscow can allow NATO forces to use both the land and airspace of Russia and some nearby former Soviet republics, which will help their fight against the Taliban. But more significantly, in the long-term, once the Americans, British and the rest have gone, Russia will have a more important role in Afghanistan. The Kremlin likes to have control of countries in its 'backyard' and in future it'll be deals between Russia and local Afghan tribal leaders, rather than guns and air strikes, that keeps Afghanistan stable.

So President Obama's decision will have an impact far into the future. But there are lots of people who aren't happy about it, and those people are mostly in eastern Europe. Countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic want to avoid slipping back into Moscow's 'backyard' and wanted the missile shield as an extra guarantee of their independence from Russia. Not because the Kremlin was about to fire missiles at Warsaw or Prague, but to emphasise that they have American backing and that Moscow shouldn't try any funny business, like shutting off power supplies. That fear is multiplied many times over for Ukraine and especially Georgia, which are desperately trying to resist being sucked back into the Kremlin's orbit. If Russia's price for helping out in Afghanistan is the withdrawal of the missile shield, don't be surprised if they also manage to thwart those two countries' hopes of joining NATO.

Fraud In Afghanistan

2009-09-16T18:31:00.003+01:00

Official tallies from the Afghan presidential election show that the man already in power, Hamid Karzai, got more than 50% of the vote in last month's poll. That's enough to win the contest outright without the need for a second round run-off election. No problem you'd think, except there's a big health warning on that result. European Union officials say more than a third of the votes for Mr Karzai might be suspect because of fraud.

The issue of fraud is the first of two big problems with the Afghan election. Even if some of Mr Karzai's votes are ruled out, it seems more than likely he'll remain as president. For the last eight years he's run Afghanistan on the basis that he's the best man available, and a man the western nations can do business with. Over the years his credibility has been gradually eroded by allegations of corruption and incompetence within his government. Now, the apparent large-scale fraud in this election means his credibility is at an all-time low. By backing him over the years, the US, Britain and the rest have painted themselves into a corner, because now they're stuck propping up an ineffective administration headed by a fraudster. And as soldiers continue to die, that support is coming at a high price.

The second major issue with last month's election was the low turnout. The recent increase in NATO military action against the Taliban, called Operation Panther's Claw, was supposed to make the situation in Afghanistan stable enough so large amounts of the population would feel encouraged to get out and vote. The offensive led to this summer's increase in the amount of American and British casualties in the south of Afghanistan. And now returns from the election show that, in some areas of Helmand Province, polling stations were reporting turnouts as low as 2%. That's not to say the offensive was a failure, or that the dead soldiers gave their lives for nothing, because the Americans and British have been able to inflict damage on the Taliban and take and hold territory they'd previously been unable to.

However, there's no getting away from the fact that, after eight years of action in Afghanistan, we've just had an election in which the sitting president cheated and in which not all that many people voted. Time for a rethink.

Karzai Heads For Five More Years

2009-08-26T23:11:00.002+01:00

Early results from the election in Afghanistan show a solid lead for the current President, Hamid Karzai. He's leading his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, by around 43 percent to 34 with about half the votes counted. That means the two men will go head to head again in a run-off election in October, but there seems little doubt that Mr Karzai will win.

After the Taliban was ousted by the US-led coalition late in 2001, there was a bit of a scramble to find someone who could lead Afghanistan. Mr Abdullah was, in those days, foreign minister and spokesman of the Northern Alliance, which had done the legwork for the coalition by driving the Taliban out of the cities and into the hills. The Alliance was a ragtag assortment of various anti-Taliban groups, but because they generally weren't drawn from Afghanistan's Pashtun majority (Mr Abdullah is half-Pashtun, half-Tajik), the west sought out a Pashtun tribal leader who had authority, could speak English, and wasn't linked too closely to the Taliban. Hamid Karzai was just about the only man in Afghanistan who fitted that description, so he got the job.

And although it's now the Afghan people making the decision (or at least the 5 million of them who weren't too frightened by threats of Taliban violence to vote), Hamid Karzai is still the only person the west can think of to lead Afghanistan. They haven't much liked a lot of what he's done since he came to power. He hasn't got a firm enough grip on his country, the critics say, he hasn't done enough to get rid of corruption, or crack down on the Taliban, or sort out the country's infrastructure, or control its borders.

Much of that is true, but it's hardly all Mr Karzai's fault. Afghanistan has always been a tribal, disparate sort of place, with lots of groups of people who have little loyalty towards elders from the next town, let alone government ministers in distant Kabul. As for the man himself, he's played a canny game of late, making sure well-known and popular Afghans such as the controversial General Dostum weighed in on his behalf during the recent campaign. Mr Karzai hardly enjoys overwhelming popular support in Afghanistan, but he's so far been able to get enough of his supporters out to vote. As for those sceptical western leaders, they at least feel they can do business with him. And more to the point, they can't think of anyone else who they'd rather have in his place. Expect Mr Karzai to keep his job for a few years yet.

Even In Death, Teddy Kennedy Can't Shake Off Chappaquiddick

2009-08-26T17:31:00.002+01:00

US Senator Edward "Teddy" Kennedy has died. The long-time Democrat lawmaker and brother of the late President John F Kennedy, as well as Robert F Kennedy, was 77, and had been suffering from brain cancer.

When a politician dies, it's customary for fulsome tributes to be paid as even bitter political opponents find pleasant things to say about their late rival. And Teddy Kennedy is no different. Plenty of Republicans, with whom he fought bitterly in Congress for decades, have been praising his record of achievement and long service. He's even been described as an "effective lawmaker," although given that we're talking about the US Congress, I suppose everything is relative.

The reason why the tributes to Kennedy are focusing on his legislative record, is because he never became President. He thought about running in 1972, but didn't. Then he finally did run in 1980, but lost his party's primary election to Jimmy Carter. The main reason for both of those failures is the so-called Chappaquiddick incident.

The facts of the incident are still not entirely clear. But we do know that Kennedy crashed his car into water one night in 1969 and then left the scene of the accident. His passenger, campaign worker Mary Jo Kopechne, was later found dead under the wreckage. Kennedy was given a suspended sentence for leaving the scene, but nothing more, amid claims he was given special treatment because of his surname.

The scandal prevented Kennedy from running for the presidency in 1972, and questions about it badly damaged his attempt eight years later, which meant that he had to concentrate on making laws in the US Senate to try to re-establish his reputation. He was successful up to a point, but Chappaquiddick has followed him to the grave. Kopechne's name became a trending topic on Twitter today, as right-wing bloggers and other Kennedy-haters brought it all up again. Usually when politicians have made mistakes in their personal lives, they are forgotten about when it comes to giving the eulogies. But in this case, it's right that Kennedy should not be allowed to escape Chappaquiddick. Regardless of his years of service to the US, it remains unforgivable.

Scottish Compassion, American Anger

2009-08-21T10:29:00.003+01:00

The only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is back in his home country of Libya, where he will live out the last weeks of his life. Former Libyan secret agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has terminal cancer. He's also the biggest mass murderer in British history, yet Scotland's justice secretary Kenny MacAskill has still decided to release him on compassionate grounds because of his illness. Most of the Lockerbie victims were American, and President Obama has led criticism of the decision, describing it as a "mistake."

It's not unusual in Scotland for prisoners, even serious criminals, to be released to die at home in this sort of situation. And because the bombing took place over a Scottish town, and al-Megrahi was later convicted by a Scottish court, it's the Scottish legal system, not that of England or the US, which is important here. With so many precedents in Scotland for showing this sort of compassion, Mr MacAskill is on solid ground legally to let al-Megrahi go.

Politically it's a different matter. While many of the British families of Lockerbie victims have expressed doubt about al-Megrahi's conviction, that's not the case in the US, where there remains a widespread belief that the right man was convicted, even though the evidence against him is circumstantial and thin at best, and there's surely no way he could have acted alone. This means US politicians are inevitably going to say al-Megrahi should die in jail. The images of al-Megrahi being greeted as a hero on his return to Tripoli don't help, and they've given plenty of fodder to the predictably furious commentators on US cable news.

Whether al-Megrahi really was the bomber or not cannot have been relevant to Mr MacAskill's decision. In the eyes of Scots law, he was. So, that Mr MacAskill resisted all this huge international political pressure is to his credit. It would have been far easier to let al-Megrahi die in Greenock jail. It seems that there's been no deal between Scotland and Libya, Scotland is getting nothing (except American scorn) for this act of mercy. Politicians often talk about making tough decisions, Mr MacAskill has actually gone ahead and made one. President Obama might not like it, but that's just tough. It's not up to him.

There are still plenty of questions about Lockerbie which remain unanswered. Who helped al-Megrahi? Did the Libyan government order the attack? Was it a different government, possibly Iran? Did al-Megrahi and Libya actually have nothing to do with it? Despite al-Megrahi's release, we seem no closer to finding out the answers to any of these. Perhaps the renewed interest in Lockerbie will flush out some new information. But with Libya keen to forget about the whole episode and continue its new, friendlier relationship with the west, I wouldn't bet on it.

Burma, Carrots And Sticks

2009-08-16T21:12:00.002+01:00

A US Senator has been in Burma for talks with the country's military leaders. Jim Webb has managed to secure the release of an American citizen who was caught swimming across a lake to the home where opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest.

Suu Kyi has been sentenced to another 18 months under arrest because of the whole bizarre affair, which conveniently means she won't be able to participate in elections planned for next year. She easily won the last elections held in the country almost two decades ago, and has been locked up more or less ever since. But despite international pressure and various sanctions, the military leaders in Burma (they insist on calling it Myanmar) haven't had much trouble hanging on to power, even when challenged by protests as they were in 2007. This is largely because the military regime has the support of China, so isn't that bothered about cosying up to the west for anything.

The continued failure of the west's tactics up to this point give leaders in the US, Britain and elsewhere a dilemma. Try engaging more with the hated military rulers, hoping the carrot of trade and tourism will open the country up, or try using a bigger stick consisting of tougher sanctions and weapons embargoes to force the Burmese to make changes? Although the regime has shown some willingness to be a bit more open, notably last year when allowing international aid agencies into the regions affected by a devastating cyclone, there is no sign that the elections next year will be anything other than a farce.

Western leaders are probably best advised to try to get the Chinese to put pressure on the regime bosses, on the basis that at least they might listen to what Beijing has to say. The Burmese certainly don't listen to the UN, even refusing UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon permission to meet Suu Kyi on a recent visit. However, for as long as Burma doesn't become a diplomatic problem for China, by for example trying to build a nuclear bomb like North Korea, it's difficult to see why the Chinese would be particularly interested in trying to bring about a democratic revolution there. That is, after all, what the leaders in Beijing most fear might one day happen in their own country.

Castro Tries To Hold Back Time

2009-07-31T18:37:00.005+01:00

Cuba's President Raul Castro has postponed the Congress of his country's Communist Party, which was due to take place later this year. When it eventually happens, it'll be the sixth such meeting since he and his brother Fidel seized power in a revolution back in 1959, but with both now ageing, it'll almost certainly be the last with them in power.

Raul says he needs more time to make sure the meeting takes place in the right way. That's basically code for he still hasn't worked out how to make sure the Communist regime remains in place once he and his brother have gone. Wondering when the Castro brothers will finally leave the political stage has long been a favourite parlour game of the families of Cuban exiles in Florida, forced out by the Communists all those years ago, who would dearly love to return to a non-Communist Cuba. As soon as Fidel and Raul die, the exiles will do anything they can to sweep away the current regime.

The fact that the Castros have remained in power so long has a lot to do with the personal credibility they have in the eyes of many ordinary Cubans. After all, both Fidel and Raul personally fired the first shots of the campaign for a revolution, at the Moncada Barracks all the way back in 1953. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the regime they have led over the last fifty years, that personal credibility has helped them retain the affection of many Cubans, plenty of whom remain proud of the revolution.

But if the exiles and other enemies of the Castros believe that their deaths will end up badly weakening the regime's authority, then they're probably right. Younger Cubans are increasingly aware of the world outside, including the US less than 100 miles away. The huge increase in tourism in Cuba, developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union which had previously propped up the regime, has given ordinary Cubans a close-up look of the lifestyle of wealthy westerners. Raul Castro knows that it's a lifestyle lots of Cubans want for themselves, and he knows that once he's gone, his successors at the top of the Communist party may struggle to maintain the control that he and his brother have enjoyed for so long, by dint of their revolutionary exploits. However Raul Castro eventually deals with this problem at the next Congess meeting, the odds are probably against the Communists managing another fifty years in power.

"He Could Have Easily Been Given 190 Percent"

2009-07-24T10:34:00.003+01:00

President Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan has won a comfortable victory in the country's election. In fact, he took more than 86 percent of the vote, with the main opposition candidate getting just 7 percent. Unsurprisingly, Mr Bakiyev's opponents have refused to accept the result and have accused him of vote-rigging, with one suggesting the outcome is so ridiculous that Bakiyev "could easily have been given 190 percent." It's just like being back in the USSR.

It's all very different from four years ago. Then, Mr Bakiyev was swept to power by the so-called Tulip Revolution. The crowds that took to the streets of the capital Bishkek wanted rid of the previous regime because it had become too corrupt and authoritarian. Within a few months, a reasonably free election had returned Mr Bakiyev to office, and as he started making welcome noises about cleaning things up, western nations began to cosy up to Kyrgyzstan.

Now it seems Mr Bakiyev has gone the way of his predecessor, and is using all kinds of Soviet-style nonsense in order to stay in power. Of course the election was rigged, and of course he is now too corrupt and authoritarian to be a proper leader of a modern country. But you won't hear too many western leaders complaining about it. They need a stable Kyrgyzstan in order to prevent Taliban fighters from nearby Afghanistan getting another safe-haven in the area. Russia and China both take more than a passing interest in Kyrgyzstan, and neither wants radical Islam spreading any further in their backyard. So, lucky old Mr Bakiyev can basically do whatever he wants, as long as he keeps his country's borders secure. The only way he'll leave office is in another revolution.

It's Not Just About The Pirates

2009-07-21T11:14:00.003+01:00

Somalia has been in the news a lot over the past couple of years, almost entirely to do with the pirates which have left its coast to attack ships in the Red Sea. Both people and vessels have been held to big ransoms, and the continued lack of a central government worthy of the name in Somalia means that successful pirates have been able to go back home and live high on the hog courtesy of their ill-gotten gains.

But all of this has obscured Somalia's other problems, which will be familiar to anyone who's taken even a passing interest in the country at any point over the last couple of decades. A battle for control of Somalia's territory is raging between a group of Islamist fighters called al Shabaab, and the would-be government which is represented by African Union forces. Stuck somewhere in the middle, hopelessly outgunned as always, is the UN

Yesterday's escalation in the trouble came in Baidoa, in the south of the country and traditionally one of the more stable areas. After saying they'd force the UN out of Somalia, some al Shabaab fighters attacked and looted a couple of UN compounds. As a result, the UN has got out of Baidoa, with the staff legging it to Kenya. Al Shabaab has warned anyone else trying to carry out aid work in the area to contact them first, and they'll be told what they can and can't do.

This is Al Shabaab demonstrating to the UN, the would-be Somali government in the capital Mogadishu, and anyone else who's interested, just how powerful they are. In the areas they control, they can do whatever they want. Al Shabaab's aim is to conquer the whole country and reintroduce the kind of hardline Islamist government last seen during the brief rule of the Union of Islamic Courts back in 2006. The UIC sounded rather too much like the Taliban for the liking of the US and other western countries, and they supported Ethiopian troops who were used to drive the UIC out. If Al Shabaab continues to advance, expect the US and others to consider something similar.

The Shuttle Nears The End

2009-07-13T22:46:00.002+01:00

NASA is about to make a fifth attempt to get the space shuttle Endeavour off the ground on its latest mission to the International Space Station. It's been delayed by a combination of technical troubles and bad weather. The mission is one of the longest and most complex in the history of the shuttle programme, and when it finally links up with the ISS a record will be set for the most amount of people in orbit at one time. But behind NASA's positive spin, it knows the shuttle is about to go out of service, and it's about to fall behind in the modern space race.

There will be seven more shuttle missions after this one, then the ageing fleet will be retired. The shuttles will eventually be replaced by the planned Orion craft, but probably not until 2015 at the earliest. In the meantime, NASA is going to have to rely on its once great rival, the Russian space programme, to keep the ISS going. It won't be the first time this has happened either. After the Columbia disaster of 2003, when the shuttle fleet was grounded, it was Russian Soyuz craft that carried people and parts to and from the ISS. After the last shuttle flies for the last time, it'll again be the veteran Soyuz that takes the strain, although Russia is planning a replacement that should come into service before NASA's Orion.

There's a big irony in all this. This is the month that the 40th anniversary of NASA's greatest victory over the Soviet Union, when it successfully landed men on the moon, is being marked. But now NASA is so hamstrung by a relative lack of money and political will, it's forced to rely on the Russians and the rest for the technology and cash to get the job done in space. This doesn't necessarily matter to anyone other than the Americans, it is the International Space Station after all, and it's right that it's an international effort. But the fact that for much of its working life the station will not be serviced by NASA craft proves that the Americans no longer own space in the way they once did.

Mladic Remains On The Run

2009-07-11T19:52:00.005+01:00

Another anniversary has come and gone in Srebrenica. Fourteen years on from the massacre of around 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys, a ceremony has been held for more than 500 of the victims whose remains have recently been identified. But the man who commanded the Bosnian Serb forces who carried out the killings, General Ratko Mladic, is still at large.

The Mladic situation is a big problem for the Serbian government. Put simply, until he's in custody, they can't even talk to the EU about joining, and that's what Serbia and the Serbian economy badly needs. Nearby Slovenia, which was largely unaffected by the 1992-95 war, has been in the union since 2004. It has prospered, and people there earn roughly double their counterparts in Serbia. Croatia, having finally arrested all of its alleged war criminals, is about to join too. With an already strong tourism industry in that country, soon Serbia will be significantly worse off than most of its neighbours, and that's a big political problem for the Serbian government.

In the past, a mixture of Serb national pride and the legacy of wartime propaganda meant that Mladic and his fellow fugitives enjoyed considerable support form ordinary Serbian people. That has helped them stay in hiding, and made it politically difficult for past Serbian governments to arrest them. But as memories of the war fade, and the Serbian economy continues to fall behind other nations in the area, that support is ebbing away. The arrest of Mladic's old partner Radovan Karadzic passed without too much trouble. When the authorities finally catch up with Mladic, the same will surely be true. Ordinary Serbs now largely realise their future lies within the EU, not in the old world of Serb nationalism.

So if the political and public will in Serbia now exists to arrest Mladic, one problem remains. Actually finding him. The hills of western Serbia and the Serb-controlled part of eastern Bosnia contain plenty of remote hiding places. And General Mladic still has support among the men he used to command. So even if NATO or Serb forces find out where he's hiding, any military operation could finish in an horrific bloodbath halfway up a mountain, with a reasonable chance Mladic would be able to slip away. The most likely ways for the authorities to detain Mladic are either if they get lucky and literally just run into him one day, or if someone betrays him for reward money. Until that day, Serbia's dreams of joining the EU will remain as dreams.

Fifteen Dead In Ten Days

2009-07-10T22:26:00.002+01:00

Since I published my earlier post, the deaths of a further six UK soldiers in Iraq have been confirmed, including five members of a single foot patrol. It's becoming harder by the day for the British government and military leadership to justify the price being paid in Afghanistan. No doubt they will still wait to see how the influx of US forces to Helmand affects the situation in the coming weeks and months. But each casualty means that strategy will be given less time to prove itself before a different and more radical option will have to be considered.

Nine Dead In Nine Days

2009-07-10T11:57:00.002+01:00

Two more UK troops have died in separate attacks in Afghanistan. That means nine soldiers have been killed in as many days. Since the fighting in Afghanistan began back in 2001, a total of 178 UK troops have now been killed, just one fewer than the number of fatalities during the operation in Iraq.

People die in wars, especially during offensives such as the one currently taking place in Afghanistan. But this latest increase in British casualties confirms that, although things aren't necessarily going badly, the mission is not going as well as the commanders and politicians want.

There are at least two main reasons for this. One is a question of resources. Britain had been fighting the Taliban alone in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan, Helmand Province. But the lack of resources available to the UK military these days means they haven't been able to take and hold territory in the traditional way. So any victory over the Taliban in battle, and any casualties suffered in the process, have not been for very much gain, because the British have had to return to their barracks. Now, with an extra American military focus on Helmand Province, that might change, and this will be the key thing to watch in Afghanistan in the next few months.

Then there's the question of how local Afghan people react to the foreign forces in their country. There aren't all that many reasons why they should be any more thrilled to welcome the NATO troops than they were to embrace the Taliban in the mid-90s or the Russians in the 80s. They know that the British, the Americans and the rest will one day leave, and will doubt whether they have the long term interests of the Afghan people really at heart. Don't forget this is the fourth war Britain has fought in Afghanistan in the last 180 years. It's nowhere near finished, either.

Stranger In Moscow

2009-07-06T11:55:00.003+01:00

President Obama has arrived in Moscow for his first visit to Russia since taking office. These US/Russia summits aren't the big deal they were back in the Cold War days, when the fate of the world seemed to hang on meetings between, say, Reagan and Gorbachev. But Mr Obama's got plenty of important things to discuss with President Medvedev and the man who's still the most powerful politician in Russia, Prime Minister Putin.

The headline news of the trip is likely to be a deal on reducing the two countries' stockpiles of nuclear warheads. So far, so 1980s. More contentiously, Russia is not happy with America's plans to build a missile defence shield with bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, both far too close for The Kremlin's comfort. The US wants to build the system to help protect it against a possible nuclear threat from, amongst other places, Iran. And the Americans could do with Moscow's help on Iran more generally, because Russian technology has been widely used in the Iranians' attempt to build a nuclear bomb. It'll be interesting to see if a deal can be reached, perhaps with the US scaling back its missile defence plans in return for Russia backing away from Iran, and allowing the US to use Russian territory to help the NATO effort in Afghanistan.

No prizes for guessing that, away from the national security stuff, economic issues will be the other main theme of the two-day summit. And Russia's in an increasingly strong position compared to the US when it comes to talking money. It was Russian cash that largely funded the recent Canadian-led buyout of General Motors. And with Russian trade with the US at surprisingly low levels (about the same as the amount Poland does), there's plenty of room for improvement. No matter how tense the talks get when it comes to security, Mr Obama will be very keen to find ways to get better economic links.

Obama's Big Test In Iraq

2009-07-01T10:10:00.002+01:00

US forces have at last withdrawn from cities and towns across Iraq, handing control to local forces more than six years after the invasion. Those Americans left in Iraq will now be mostly confined to their barracks, in what military folk rather tediously call an 'overwatch' role. Basically they're able to step in if something goes wrong, but from here on in, the Iraqis are largely on their own.

You might think that things have been relatively quiet in Iraq in the two years since the 'surge' of US troops went after the bad guys and stopped much of the violence. And you'd be right, relatively speaking. But in the last couple of weeks there's been a sudden increase in bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere, which have left dozens of civilians dead. The people carrying out the attacks are keen to let everyone in Iraq know that the US is not leaving in victory, but is being forced out by the continued unrest.

The big question now is - how many more bomb attacks will the US allow to happen before its forces are ordered out of the barracks and back into the cities? Military bosses will be telling President Obama that relatively small operations in particular neighbourhoods could root out those behind the recent attacks, and that US troops wouldn't need to leave their bases for long. But Mr Obama will also have to consider the politics of all this. The reason the troops are leaving now is because he made an explicit promise to do so during his campaign for the presidency. To appear to go back on that promise, even if only for a short time, would be a political blow for him, and would also beg the question of how many more times US forces would be called on to leave their barracks to carry out further missions. Mr Obama would prefer not to have to send them back into harm's way at all. But if the bombings continue, he may feel he has no choice.

Tense Times In Iran

2009-06-15T11:47:00.002+01:00

The angry reaction to the official result of the election in Iran continues. Supporters of the opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi have called off a rally planned for today after government officials said it was illegal. They accuse the government of rigging the results of last week's poll, to make sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned for another term as president. Many of the Mousavi supporters are young students, and dark rumours are filtering through from the university of an alleged massacre last night. Reports say the campus is draped in black banners today.

From a western perspective, this is not a situation that anyone wanted. Sure, western leaders would generally have preferred a clear victory for the more moderate Mr Mousavi over the anti-American Mr Ahmadinejad. But another four years of President Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily be the worst outcome, because at least he would offer a certain stability in what is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. And stability keeps the price of oil down. The disputed election result has led to this current crisis, which threatens to cause not just instability in the oil markets, but also a lot of bloodshed on the streets of Iran. Western leaders and the rest of us can do little more than wait, watch, and hope for the best.

Photo Finish In Iran

2009-06-10T15:20:00.002+01:00

It's the last day of campaigning in Iran's presidential election. Four contenders are standing, but only two have a chance of winning, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi.

It looks as though it's going to be very close, and the result matters for the rest of the world. Arguably the biggest byproduct of the Iraq War has been the rise of Iran's influence, as it pursues its nuclear programme and shows growing signs of meddling in the affairs of neighbours and near-neighbours from Afghanistan to Lebanon. Partly this confrontational stance has been driven by the hardline position of Mr Ahmadinejad, along with the clerics who still hold huge sway over the politics of Iran. The veteran Mr Mousavi on the other hand, would probably be more conciliatory were he to win the election. A man the west would find it easier to do business with, perhaps. Although having said that, those clerics would demand that Iran remains a tough, strong player on the regional and international scene. And they would also insist that the nuclear programme continues.

Although his rivals have accused Mr Ahmadinejad of isolating Iran with his extreme outbursts which make headlines over here from time to time, it might be a more familiar subject which leads to his defeat - the economy. He's under pressure for allegedly lying about the state of Iran's finances, as the country struggles because of high inflation and the lower price of oil. But if Friday's vote does indeed mean the end for Mr Ahmadinejad, western leaders won't care too much about what causes it.

No Alternatives, But No War Either

2009-06-01T15:22:00.003+01:00

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says the US isn't looking for an alternative to the current six-party talks on North Korea. The standoff over North Korea's nuclear programme was recently ratcheted up a notch by its latest nuclear test, along with a series of tests of non-nuclear missiles. Mr Gates told his counterparts from Japan and South Korea today that diplomacy remains the way forward, although other options may be considered if that fails.

But here's the thing. Diplomacy won't fail altogether, in as much as there won't be an all-out war. North Korea doesn't want to start another Korean War, let alone a nuclear one. The warnings from North Korea about aiming missiles at the South, or taking even stronger measures if the UN announces further sanctions (as it probably will do this week), are not made with the idea that those threats will ever be carried out.

North Korea's actions are all about old-fashioned power politics. Its interest is in strengthening its position so when it eventually decides to take the negotiations seriously it can get more of what it wants, which probably include things like trade and aid. There's also the personal motivation of the ailing Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il. With no obvious successor, North Korea faces an uncertain future should he die, and he's surely worried that not only his regime, but perhaps the whole country might cease to exist after he's gone. Having nuclear weapons and showing them off every now and again makes that prospect far more remote.

The Deal?

2009-05-21T01:40:00.003+01:00

Lawyers for the former political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, say they will present evidence at his war crimes trial of a deal he allegedly struck with a top US diplomat. They want the charges against him thrown out on the basis of a promise, purportedly made in 1996 by the man who was America's peace envoy to the former Yugoslavia Richard Holbrooke, that Karadzic would be given immunity from prosecution. Karadzic has long claimed such a deal existed, and Holbrooke has always denied it, but now Karadzic's lawyers say they'll show us the evidence next week.

In one sense, this doesn't really matter. The lawyers want the charges thrown out because of this alleged deal, but the court has already said that, even if the deal did exist, it wouldn't be enough of a reason for the trial to collapse.

But there are two things to say about this. The first is that, if it turns out there really was a deal, it would be more than a little embarrassing for plenty of people back in Washington. That includes Bill Clinton, who would surely have known about such a promise, and Barack Obama, who recently appointed Mr Holbrooke as his special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's one thing to be a pragmatic diplomat and talk to your enemies, but quite another to tell someone who is probably responsible (at the very, very least indirectly) for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people that he'll be in the clear if he keeps his head down.

That point presumes the evidence of this supposed deal is believable. But even if it's not, we're now getting a sense of how the Karadzic trial will play out. And it's starting to look suspiciously similar to the trial of the ex-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Over several years, there were delaying tactics, some grandstanding from the man himself, hundreds of witnesses and lots of evidence - yet not much that really firmly established his guilt. In the end, he died before the trial finished. There's no suggestion Karadzic's health is as bad as Milosevic's was, but it's fair to assume we're probably years away from reaching the end of this case.

Gracious In Victory?

2009-05-19T13:27:00.004+01:00

After more than a quarter of a century of civil war, the Tamil Tigers have finally been defeated. All territory lost, the body of their dead leader paraded on Sri Lankan television, their hopes of establishing a Tamil homeland in the north of the island apparently over. Or at least that's how it looks today, following the decisive military victory won by Sri Lankan government forces. But it's not quite as simple as that.

Leaving aside the allegations of human rights abuses on both sides, and the reported quarter of a million people displaced in recent weeks by the government's final offensive, what happens next politically is hugely important for the future of Sri Lanka. If the conflict is not to flare up again in future, the government must be gracious in victory, and begin work immediately towards doing a better job of involving the Tamil people in the government and general society of the whole island. But if the Sri Lankan government and the majority Sinhalese population insist on humiliating the Tamils (and after such a bitter, long-running war, that wouldn't be too surprising), then they'll only be storing up trouble.

The Tamil Tigers may no longer have the ability to take and hold territory, and the days when they had their own navy and air force seem like a long time ago now, but you can bet that some of the surviving Tigers will be intent on revenge. Some form of guerrilla campaign, featuring the suicide bombings the Tigers became infamous for, will be inevitable unless the Sri Lankan government takes care to give the Tamil people at least some of what they've been fighting for. Perhaps greater autonomy might be a start. Otherwise, with a Tamil population around the world now radicalised by the bloody defeat suffered by the Tigers, another war could soon be in the offing.

The British Leave Iraq

2009-04-30T11:56:00.002+01:00

British combat operations in Iraq have finally ended, with a handover to American forces. 179 British personnel have died since the invasion of the country six years ago. During the same period, around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (some estimates put the figure much higher, but I'm going with the number supplied by Iraq Body Count).

You can't fail to have noticed that the arguments about whether the war was a good idea in the first place have never really stopped raging. They aren't finished yet either, because the government now seems certain to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of how it ended up going to war. Even if that inquiry is held in secret, the same old arguments, hopefully mixed in with some new information, will be heard again and again.

Leaving all that aside for just now, the other obvious question to ask about Britain's involvement in Iraq over the last six years is - has it been a success? The answer is a qualified no. No because of those 100,000 dead Iraqis, those 179 dead British soldiers, the strengthening of Iran, and because of the huge dent to the moral authority of the US, Britain and the other pro-war nations. On the other hand, and this is where the qualified part comes in, at least Saddam Hussein isn't ruling Iraq anymore.

That's not quite the only good thing to say about Iraq though. Whisper it quietly, but at long last it seems as though much of Iraq is now a pretty safe place to be, certainly the areas in the south which were previously under British control. Suggestions that it's now safer to walk around Basra than London are surely exaggerated, but the country certainly hasn't plunged back into chaos and civil war even though the local Iraqi forces are handling security. It may well be that in decades to come Iraq will indeed become a relatively stable, relatively free, democratic country, in the mould of the Iraq envisaged by Bush and Blair when they decided to invade. That will be a good thing. But the shocking human cost of such an achievement can't be forgotten.

Last Chance For The ANC

2009-04-23T11:32:00.002+01:00

The African National Congress is heading for another big victory in South Africa's general election. Despite being in power for 15 years, and a renewed challenge from opposition parties, the ANC and its newish leader Jacob Zuma is going to dominate the next parliament, although it may not quite get the two-thirds of the vote it needs to be able to change the country's constitution. No matter, it's still another huge mandate.

But this might be the last one the ANC gets. The party's dominance is based on the years it spent as a terrorist organisation, fighting South Africa's Apartheid rulers, and then on its early years in government in the 1990s when it was led by a man widely regarded as the closest thing we've got to a living saint, Nelson Mandela. Even though crime has been almost unbearably high under the ANC, the fact Mandela's administration managed the transition from the old Apartheid regime in a surprisingly smooth and peaceful fashion, has been enough to keep the party in power ever since.

However, Mr Zuma has a lot to do if he's to keep it that way. His predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, famously refused to recognise the link between HIV and AIDS, at least partly because his government couldn't afford to pay for the necessary drugs for all of South Africa's AIDS sufferers. Had he been standing again, he surely wouldn't have won this election as easily, but the electorate has chosen to give Mr Zuma a chance to tackle the big problems facing South Africa. Up to now, the ANC's lack of progress on AIDS, crime and other issues has been outweighed in the voters' minds by a lingering respect and affection for the party's history, and for its most famous leader. But that won't wash in future if Jacob Zuma doesn't start to make the country a better place to live. And with a World Cup to host next year, it won't just be South Africans taking an interest - the whole world will be watching too. Even in his moment of victory, Mr Zuma must know that the real hard work starts here.

The Tamil Tigers' Last Stand

2009-04-22T10:57:00.002+01:00

It looks as though Sri Lanka's long civil war could be in its final stages. Government troops have captured yet more of what little territory the rebel Tamil Tigers have left, leading to a big exodus of refugees from the area, in the north of the island. Less than three years ago the Tigers, who want their own homeland, controlled more than 15,000 square kilometres. Today that's down to two tiny areas, with what's left of their army now split between them.

The Tigers won't want to surrender - their fighters famously carry cyanide capsules on strings around their necks to take if they're captured - but it seems they may completely collapse within days under huge pressure from the Sri Lankan government forces. Occasionally during the last 25 years of war, the government troops have made major gains against the Tigers, only to back off in favour of negotiations, which rarely led very far and gave the Tigers the opportunity to regroup and rearm.

This time it's different. The Sri Lankan government wants to get rid of the Tigers once and for all, and seems intent on doing whatever it takes. Human rights groups have joined the Tigers in accusing the government troops of killing civilians during their offensive, by firing artillery at buildings including hospitals. But this is a crisis that has failed to capture the attention of politicians or the media in the rest of the world, so the Sri Lankans seem likely to get away with murder. They probably believe that civilian deaths are an inevitable price of the tough tactics necessary to defeat the terrorist Tigers. Governments elsewhere obviously believe that too, because they've given the Sri Lankans a free pass to do whatever they like.

The Two Sides Of Modern China

2009-04-09T12:17:00.006+01:00

Two interesting pieces of news today concerning China. First the apparently good news. China's Foreign Ministry has urged Iran to accept international talks to try to find a diplomatic solution to the row over its alleged nuclear ambitions.

But if that's an example of China's growing desire to get involved in international politics, there's also a reminder of the other side of China - the human rights-ignoring, brutal regime we're more familiar with. Two members of the Muslim minority Uighur community have been executed for their part in a terrorist attack which took place last summer, just before the Beijing Olympics. It seems the men were killed in front of a crowd of thousands in, would you believe it, a sport stadium. Chinese government officials aren't known for their sense of irony.

The contrast between these two stories encapsulates neatly China's current position in the world. The regime is keen to engage more with the west - economically, poltically, diplomatically and culturally - but not at any price. The party officials in Beijing don't want a repeat of the popular revolutions which swept across the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 80s, revolutions which followed some relaxing of the previous closed approaches of those regimes. So to make sure there's no chance of something similar happening in China, the Beijing government is continuing to get tough on any hint of unrest, even if, as in this case, it takes place thousands of miles away from the capital. The warm, smiling China that we all saw during the Olympics remains only half the story.

Negotiating With Terrorists

2009-03-26T21:15:00.002Z

It appears that five Britons, held as hostages in Iraq for almost two years, are about to be released. The Guardian claims that their captors have struck a deal to trade one of the hostages for ten militants currently held by the US. If it comes to pass, it seems likely similar arrangements will lead to the others being freed too.

You could be forgiven for not knowing about the five Britons. In contrast to some past hostage cases, such as Ken Bigley, there's been almost no media coverage about the men. Partly this is because of who they are. One is a computer consultant, while the others are described as security consultants, which is so vague it seems certain they're linked to British intelligence in some way. The other main reason we've heard so little is because, all this time, the British government has been doing what it says it doesn't do, negotiating with terrorists. And the British didn't want anything about that in the media, to avoid upsetting the delicate discussions.

Governments habitually say they don't negotiate with terrorists, presumably because it's the sort of thing the public expects to hear. After all, politicians don't want to sound soft on terror. But in reality, it's nonsense. Talking to the enemy to try to reach mutually satisfactory solutions on particular issues is just as big a part of countries' struggle against terrorism today as it has been throughout the history of conventional war. The US and Britain probably don't want to let the Sadrist militants go, but it's a better choice than doing nothing or trying a risky rescue mission, and even that last possibility would depend on finding out where the five are being held. Even though they don't admit it in public, politicians all over the world know that sometimes negotiating with the enemy is the least worst option.

Not Cricket

2009-03-03T14:20:00.002Z

Gunmen have attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team in the Pakistani city of Lahore. At least six local security officers were killed along with a driver, while seven of the cricketers were injured. Around 10 or 12 individuals actually carried out the attack, and none of them were arrested at the scene.

Some early speculation has put the blame on the Tamil Tigers, currently struggling badly in their struggle for a homeland in Sri Lanka, as the country's government carries out a brutal offensive aimed at wiping them out once and for all. But the attack isn't really their style. The LTTE have traditionally used suicide attacks, and have usually targeted politicians and other officials rather than cricketers. Sri Lanka's greatest ever cricketer, Muttiah Muralitharan, who was on the team bus when it was attacked, is a Tamil himself. It seems extremely unlikely that, even if the Tigers are still capable of carrying out a major terrorist attack, that they would try to kill one of their own.

A better guess is that the attack was the work of Islamist extremists. The similarities to last year's assault on Mumbai in India are striking - the level of planning apparently involved, the gang of about ten gunmen and the apparent use of grenades and rocket launchers. Within India and elsewhere, the Pakistani security services were widely accused of being at the very least complicit in the Mumbai attack, and no doubt similar allegations will now surface about possible Indian involvement in this incident, as retaliation. Whether that's true or not is impossible to judge at this stage, but if such a view becomes widespread, expect the tension between India and Pakistan to rise to levels not seen since the Kashmir crisis of 2002. All-out war between these two nuclear powers seems inconceivable, but don't be surprised if there's a build-up of forces on both sides, and possibly even military incursions into disputed territories, perhaps on the pretext of arresting terrorists. Today's attack could have an impact far greater than the cancellation of a game of cricket.

Netanyahu Returns

2009-02-20T13:51:00.002Z

Israel's President has asked the leader of the Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, to try to form a government. Netanyahu, a former prime minister, now has six weeks to put together a coalition to give him another turn in the job. Although Likud finished one seat behind the Kadima party of outgoing PM Ehud Olmert in the recent elections, the success of other, smaller, right-wing and religious parties ought to allow Mr Netanyahu to make a deal with them to ensure his return to power.

It's quite a turnaround for the veteran politician. The brother of an Israeli military hero who died at Entebbe, Mr Netanyahu first came to global attention during the first Gulf War, when, as Israel's deputy defence secretary, he was a regular sight on TV screens during Iraqi air raids. He took a tough line during his spell as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, and having later rejoined Ariel Sharon's government as finance minister, he quit over the Gaza pullout in 2005. Months later, Mr Netanyahu led the once-mighty Likud party to a humiliating fifth place in the general election of 2006, and it looked as though his political career was finished.

But things have changed since then. The relatively weak premiership of Ehud Olmert, which included the fiasco of the war with Hizbollah in 2006, and the continued firing of Hamas rockets into Israel, has arguably led Israelis to believe they need a strongman at the helm once again.

There's certainly reason to believe any attempts at a peace deal with the Palestinians may make little progress with Mr Netanyahu in power, even if President Obama pushes hard for progress - after all, Bill Clinton's relationship with Netanyahu was notoriously bad during his attempts to move the peace process forward back in the 90s. But if there's someone who'll be taking particular note of Mr Netanyahu's likely return to the premiership, it's Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Benjamin Netanyahu has regularly compared Iran and its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Expect him to order an Israeli air raid on an Iranian nuclear facility, similar to this one, sooner rather than later.

Khmer Rouge In The Dock

2009-02-17T12:35:00.002Z

The trial of a former senior Khmer Rouge leader has finally begun in Cambodia, three decades after the murderous regime was overthrown. The man in the dock used to be known as Duch, and ran a prison in which more or less all the inmates ended up dead. In all, around two million people died during the Khmer Rouge's four years in power, mostly from a combination of starvation and overwork during the doomed attempt to create an agrarian utopia.

Five senior Khmer Rouge figures are still alive and now facing trial, and Duch is the first of these into court, largely because he has now admitted his crimes and asked for forgiveness. There are two reasons why the legal process has taken so long. The first is that Duch, along with many of the former regime leaders such as Pol Pot, was able to evade capture for the best part of twenty years, lying low in one of Cambodia's many remote areas. Since his arrest, arguments between modern Cambodian politicians, representatives of the victims, the UN and other interested parties over what the tribunal should look like have delayed this day still further.

That begs the question whether such trials wouldn't be better conducted by the International Criminal Court. After all, an institution which examines such cases regularly ought to be able to make sure justice is served a lot more quickly than the kind of ad-hoc tribunal that's been set up in Cambodia. But that misses the point slightly. The queues of ordinary Cambodians who waited to get in to witness today's proceedings is testament to their desire to see the people who brutalised them tried openly in their own country. It may take longer, but justice reached under a country's own laws and under procedures agreed there, is much more satisfying than the alternative of a hearing, hidden away in a distant land. In a place like Cambodia, openness, education, truth and reconciliation are just as important as justice.

15th Time Lucky In Somalia?

2009-02-13T22:25:00.003Z

Somalia's new president has chosen the son of a former president to be the next prime minister of the troubled African country. Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke will take the key post in a new unity government that it's hoped will end almost two decades of lawlessness and war in Somalia. It's at least the 15th attempt since 1991 to solve the conflict with a new civilian administration. The previous 14 have failed.

A brief bit of history. The assorted governments have usually been split apart by differences between Somalia's powerful clans. In recent years, some members of the largest of the clans, the Hawiye, have sided with thousands of Islamist fighters, who used to be part of a group which briefly controlled much of the country during 2006. That group was forced back by Ethiopian troops, called in to help by Somalia's civilian leaders. Since then, those Islamists, Hawiye members and others who wanted to continue the fight have been engaged in a violent insurgency against the still very weak government.

This is the situation which Sharmarke finds himself in. If it sounds like a desperate job to have to do, that's because it is, but there are a couple of reasons to be positive. Many Somalis have fond memories of his father, who was a relatively successful (by Somali standards) leader until his assassination in 1969. The other is the fact that he is from the Darod clan, which means each of the three major Somali clans, including the Hawiye, are represented in senior positions in the government. Perhaps the new administration's diversity will help it succeed where the others have failed. But given the deep, bitter and long-standing divisions that continue to exist in Somalia, don't bet on it.

Sharing Power, Sharing The Blame

2009-02-11T11:48:00.003Z

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has finally been sworn in as Zimbabwe's Prime Minister. I say finally because today's ceremony follows months of wrangling between his MDC party, and the Zanu-PF regime of President Robert Mugabe, following the outcome of last year's hotly disputed election. The final major sticking point, namely which of the parties would control the police force, was eventually settled with an agreement that a minister from each party would share that responsibility, a messy deal that's unsatisfactory to say the least.

Mr Tsvangirai, probably rightly, no doubt thinks that this deal is the best he can get, and it's way past time to stop talking and start working. With Zimbabwe facing well-documented economic and health crises, and desperately in need of new leadership, Mr Tsvangirai perhaps reasons that offering whatever leadership he and his ministers can in the areas they're being allowed to run is better than nothing.

But therein lies the problem. With Zanu PF still maintaining some kind of hold over Zimbabwe's security apparatus, it's not clear exactly how much leadership the MDC ministers will really be allowed to offer. After all, the new MDC finance minister was until recently considered by the Zanu PF regime as being one of the country's most dangerous subversives, and only had charges of treason against him dropped last week. And besides, even if the new MDC ministers in the coalition administration really are allowed to govern in a meaningful way, unhindered by Mugabe's goons, the problems faced by Zimbabwe are so severe they're surely impossible to solve in the near future. No matter how hard he tries, Morgan Tsvangirai may soon find himself sharing the blame for those problems with Robert Mugabe, simply because he's now in power.

Israel Votes

2009-02-10T11:25:00.003Z

Israelis are voting today in a general election. The polls say it's going to be close between the Kadima party of outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which is now being led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and the more right-wing Likud party of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The once-dominant centre-left Labour party, these days under the leadership of Defence Minister (and another former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak, is trailing badly and looks like finishing fourth.

The campaign has unsurprisingly been dominated by the recent conflict in Gaza. Mr Olmert, who said last year he would stand down following various sleaze allegations, ordered Israel's military into Gaza in an attempt to severely damage the Hamas regime, and end the regular firing of rockets at Israeli towns. There were lots of reasons for doing it, but one factor was undoubtedly this election. Just weeks ago, Mr Netanyahu's hardline position had him well clear in the opinion polls. Now, the tough but popular-with-many-Israelis actions of Olmert and Livni in Gaza have helped their Kadima party completely close the gap going into today's vote. It sounds overly cynical to attribute the Israeli attack on Hamas, and the civilian casualties that it caused, solely to electioneering. That's because it is overly cynical. But it's impossible to assess why Israel acted the way it did without taking into account the fact this election was coming up, and many senior figures in the Israeli government were fighting for their political lives.

It actually might not matter too much whether Ms Livni or Mr Netanyahu becomes the new Prime Minister. Either will continue Israel's tough policy towards Hamas - the Israeli people demand nothing less. But either will also have to pay close attention to the policy the new US administration decides to follow in the coming weeks and months. Regardless of the election result, the person with the greatest power to influence the Israel/Palestine question will be Barack Obama.

Not Even Obama Knows What Comes Next

2009-01-20T18:18:00.004Z

Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. There were a few mis-steps during the inauguration - Senator Dianne Feinstein announced that Obama was about to take the 'oaf' of office, Mr Obama himself stumbled through the early part of the oath, and then he began his speech by wrongly stating he was the 44th person to take the job (Grover Cleveland did it twice, and is counted as both the 22nd and 24th president, so Mr Obama is only the 43rd man to serve as president). The speech itself, perhaps surprisingly, didn't hit the rhetorical heights of predecessors such as FDR and JFK. Instead he went for a more sombre, solemn speech, invoking George Washington's struggles against the British during the difficult winter of 1776 as he talked about the current economic crisis.

None of this particularly matters. All the pomp and ceremony of inauguration day will be largely forgotten, if not by tomorrow, then certainly within a few weeks and months, once Mr Obama is spending his days dealing with the problems he spoke of facing.

Expectations are high, unreasonably high in fact, and soon Mr Obama will be disappointing some of his supporters as he gets on with the business of government. But trying to predict how his presidency will turn out is a mug's game. This time eight years ago, President Bush took power with his large tax cut the main focus of his policy agenda. That slipped dramatically down that agenda within months, when al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington on 9/11. That event changed the world, and completely changed Mr Bush's presidency, for good (it helped him win re-election) and ill (his reaction eventually proved deeply unpopular around the world and, ultimately, at home too). It will be how Mr Obama deals with challenges he can't foresee now that will determine how good a president he will become.

Endgame At Guantanamo

2008-12-09T00:24:00.003Z

The man who was allegedly the main plotter behind the 9/11 attacks on the US has told a pre-trial hearing that he wants to plead guilty. Four of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's co-defendants have done the same. This all happened in a military tribunal at America's Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba, where the men and hundreds of others have been held for several years.

Most of the people held in such controversial circumstances at Guantanamo since 2001 are, if not entirely innocent, certainly guilty of not much more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time - Afghanistan in the winter of 2001/02, when a large number of them were arrested. The story of the Tipton Three, three young British men who apparently got caught up in the excitement of the time and ended up in the Taliban sronghold of Kunduz as the Northern Alliance closed in, is not unusual. It's been the detention of those suspects and others like them that's caused such damage to America's international reputation.

KSM and the other four are different. These are the real senior bad guys the US had in mind when it set up the detention centre at Guantanamo. But all the evidence suggests suspects of that level are in a significant minority, perhaps only a few dozen of the men held at the base. However, with President-elect Obama having already said he intends to close Guantanamo, the issue of what to do with these suspected al Qaeda operatives will no doubt be troubling him.

Mr Obama's got two groups of people to worry about most as he ponders how exactly to close Guantanamo. The first group is those men with stories like the Tipton Three's who are still held at the base, either because their home countries refuse to accept them back, or because the US knows the men would be tortured if they were returned to those countries. Beyond offering these men asylum in the US, it's difficult to see what Mr Obama can do. That would undoubtedly be a huge risk as, even though most of the men probably have no intention of carrying out any kind of terrorist act, there's always a chance one or two or more might.

Then there's those 80 or so real bad guys. Suggestions from the Obama team point towards putting them on trial in some kind of hybrid military/civilian court, possibly in America itself, possibly not. The major difficulty in getting convictions (in cases in which the defendants don't plead guilty) will be the use of torture on the suspects during their period of detention. Any half-decent defence lawyer should be able to pick plenty of holes in any prosecution case containing evidence gleaned from such interrogations. But however Mr Obama decides to resolve those problems, it seems as though we're now entering the endgame for Guantanamo.

Harper Hangs On

2008-12-04T23:47:00.002Z

Canada's Tory Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has won a suspension of parliament as he bids to hang on to his job. He's been up against it because of anger from opposition parties about his budget plans, which didn't feature a major package to help the country through the economic crisis, but did include proposals to cut funding for opposition parties. As a result, Mr Harper seemed certain to lose a vote of confidence in parliament next week. That vote now won't happen, because he was able to persuade Canada's Governor General to agree to his request to call the whole thing off until the end of January.

If you think this all sounds like something out of the old days of the British Empire, you're not entirely wrong. It really is up to the Governor General personally to agree to the request to suspend parliament. Just as it would have been up to her to agree to any suggestion from the opposition parties, who've been talking about forming a coalition government in place of Mr Harper's Tory administration. The Governor General is not elected, but is appointed by the Queen. And, er, that's it. The last time there was a vaguely similar crisis in the UK, back in 1963, the Queen herself appointed Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister. But that was 45 years ago.

But questions of changing the outdated system must wait for another day. The system that exists is the system the Canadians have got, and they're stuck with it for the duration of this crisis. And despite his political blunders, the odds must still be on Mr Harper's survival. The main opposition party, the Liberals (roughly equivalent to our Labour party) did poorly in the last general election just a couple of months ago, and its leader Stephane Dion said he was going to quit as a result. Any solution that ends up with him as Prime Minister (as the leader of a coalition of opposition parties) would potentially be difficult to stomach for an electorate that so recently rejected both him and his party. It may well come to pass that a new election needs to take place to get out of the crisis. But with polls already showing Mr Harper's Conservatives ahead of the rating they managed in the election, expect him to remain Prime Minister for the foreseeable future.

Terror In Mumbai

2008-11-27T12:21:00.004Z

Terrorist gunmen have killed more than 100 people and injured a further 300 in a series of co-ordinated attacks on targets in India's financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay to you and me). The attackers opened fire at luxury hotels, hospitals, a well-known cafe and a railway station. The head of Mumbai's anti-terrorist squad is among the dead.

Blame's already being attached to the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, and its Indian Mujahideen offshoot. A previously-unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen has said it carried out the attacks, and it seems probable that it's linked to the SIMI and IM. But the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also said he believes the attackers have links outside India, and there are good reasons to suspect he might be right.

The Mumbai shootings show a surprise shift in tactics from the Islamist terrorists. Past attacks in India have usually involved leaving bombs at various targets in the traditional way. This onslaught, featuring a mixture of gunfire, hostage-taking and men clearly willing to die in the act of terrorism, is clearly different. The fact that gunmen targeted places used by westerners, and witness reports that they tried to single out those with American and British passports, indicate something of an Al Qaeda-style dimension to these attacks. There's no sign (yet) Al Qaeda itself had anything directly to do with what happened in Mumbai. But it seems its tactics of suicide and of targeting westerners influenced those who carried out the attacks. Expect the dramatic and audacious nature of this incident to inspire others in the future.

Obama Gets Down To Work

2008-11-06T22:24:00.002Z

After the victory, the transition. There are plenty of baffling things about the way Americans elect their presidents, but probably the most bizarre to those of us used to seeing removal vans turn up round the back of Downing Street before dawn after election night, is the period of two and a half months before they're actually allowed to take office. Tuesday night may have been Barack Obama's finest hour, but he's not going to be able to actually do any governing for nearly seven weeks.

(As a sidebar, the reason for all this delay is linked to the way the founders of the US structured the system. The number of 'electoral college votes' assigned to each state on election night, translates to an actual person, an elector. All the electors from around the country meet and formally cast their votes on behalf of their state. In the old days it took a while for everyone to get together, hence the delay before the new president is inaugurated. It seems nobody's bothered enough about this odd way of doing things to get round to changing it.)

But at least it gives Mr Obama plenty of time to assemble the team he'll take with him into the White House. And he's made a quick start - his chief of staff will be Rahm Emanuel. He's a former senior staff member during the Clinton years, and has recently been serving as a congressman. You might know him a lot better through the TV character based on him, Josh Lyman of the West Wing. This appointment suggests Mr Obama has made two decisions about the kind of administration he wants to lead.

First - he recognises his own inexperience, and wants to surround himself with people who know all about the dark arts of getting laws passed on Capitol Hill (the last two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton, both struggled in the early days of their presidencies, partly because of a lack of Washington knowhow in both themselves and their top advisors). Second - although he's spoken of the need to involve Republicans in his administration and strike a bipartisan stance, and he may well do so up to a point (Robert Gates looks likely to be asked to stay on as Secretary of Defence, for example), he's also going to have some really partisan, no-nonsense Democrats right at the top of his team.

This is all very sensible. President Obama will hope that Mr Emanuel can effectively do his dirty work for him, when it comes to the grubby business of actually achieving the change he's so often referred to. There's an old saying that politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. He may have been more poetic than most, but Mr Obama won't be any different.

John McCain's Last Stand

2008-10-27T13:23:00.002Z

Back in the 1984 presidential election, when it became obvious Ronald Reagan was going to thrash Walter Mondale, the Democrat was told to spend the last days of his campaign acting as he'd like his grandchildren to remember him. It's not clear yet whether John McCain's being given the same advice, but as the polls continue to show him several points behind Barack Obama, he's certainly dropped the most negative parts of his pitch to the American people. We haven't heard much about Bill Ayers lately.

On NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, 41 years to the day after he was shot down in Vietnam, Senator McCain said all the right things but still sounded pretty resigned to defeat. At the end of his interview with Tom Brokaw, he almost seemed to be saying goodbye to the big-time political stage, as he thanked the veteran anchorman for his years of broadcasting service. He really doesn't sound like a man who truly believes he can still win.

But for all that, politics can be surprising, and there are no doubt at least a couple of surprises left in the final week of the campaign. Senator Obama isn't totally out of sight, and if the gap between the men closes a bit in the coming days, there's bound to be at least one opinion poll giving Mr McCain the lead. That wouldn't necessarily make an overall McCain victory particularly likely, but it would strike a bit of fear into the Obama campaign - a fear that might, just might, lead to a costly mistake from their man.

Then there are the qualities of John McCain himself. During his long political career he's often come back from difficult positions to win. That, if nothing else, is probably what's kept his campaign team going over the last few weeks. It's not completely wishful thinking; his personal popularity and past success in a state such as New Hampshire could see him confound the polls and win there. However, that would only count for a measly four electoral college votes.

In the final days of this campaign, expect McCain to close the gap a bit, and expect the results on election night to be closer than the polls suggest - just don't expect him to win. But at least if he keeps his campaign positive between now and next Tuesday, he'll be able to leave the political stage with dignity, and with a career his grandkids will no doubt be proud to remember.

It's The Barack Obama Show!

2008-10-13T10:43:00.002+01:00

Barack Obama is to become the first US presidential candidate for 16 years to do a half-hour long political broadcast. His campaign, which has plenty of cash, has bought airtime on both CBS and NBC for the evening of Wednesday October 29, less than a week before polling day.

The last candidate to do it was Ross Perot, the billionaire third-party contender who did pretty well back in 1992. But this move by Obama is more reminiscent of the Democrat who ran for the presidency in both 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson. In the 1952 campaign, Stevenson chose to run 18 separate half-hour adverts, during which he expanded at length on his various policies. His opponent, Dwight D Eisenhower, instead pioneered the short 30-second ads that are so familiar today. He won easily, partly because the snappy communication of his message came over a lot better than the haughty Stevenson's more highbrow approach.

This doesn't mean Barack Obama's setting himself up for a fall by going for a half-hour advert. Although there's a danger that, like Stevenson, he'll simply come over to many people as an elitist liberal snob, the sort of Americans who are inclined to think of him in that way are pretty unlikely to vote for him. Instead this could turn out to be a clever move for two reasons. The first is that John McCain probably doesn't have enough money to be able to do the same thing. The second is that it gives Senator Obama another opportunity to speak directly to the American people without the filter of the media. And with the polls showing he's done well in the debates so far, his primetime appearance could help secure him the election.

Kosovo Slips Further Away From Serbia

2008-10-09T23:25:00.002+01:00

It's been a good day for Kosovo. That's the little part of south-east Europe that used to be part of Yugoslavia and then Serbia, and was latterly run by the UN after the 1999 war waged by NATO to end Slobodan Milosevic's attempts at ethnic cleansing. Kosovo finally declared independence from Serbia in February, and since then nearly 50 other countries have recognised that independence. Today, two of the other bits of the old Yugoslavia, Montenegro and Macedonia, also did.

Serbia went through the motions of being angry about it, and expelling Montenegro's ambassador to Belgrade. The Serbian government has to do that, because there's still plenty of its citizens who believe Kosovo should always remain part of Serbia. That feeling's been central to the idea of Serb nationalism for more than six centuries, even though these days most of the people who live there are ethnic Albanians (the same Albanians Milosevic wanted to kick out back in 1999).

But even though Serbia also this week won a vote at the UN allowing it to challenge Kosovo's independence at the International Court of Justice, it's got no realistic chance of hanging on to its former province. It's already allowed back the ambassadors of western European countries which recognised Kosovo earlier in the year. The leaders in Belgrade know that if they want to continue to move their country closer to the rest of the world, and crucially the EU, they can't play games over Kosovo. When Serbia expresses disgust at the latest developments, it's really just keeping up appearances.

Why The Bailout Plan Was Voted Down

2008-09-30T11:13:00.002+01:00

The 700 billion dollar plan to try to save America's struggling financial industry has been rejected by politicians in the US House of Representatives. The outcome of the vote has already led to further turmoil on money markets around the world, with just about everybody less sure than ever about how the crisis is going to be resolved. But even though the Congressmen and women were under huge pressure from their political leaders to support the plan, we shouldn't be too surprised that they didn't.

It's all about self-interest. Every politician in the House of Representatives is facing re-election in just a few weeks, at the same time as the vote for the presidency. With public opinion in the US apparently set dead against the plan, with most people seeing it as a handout for greedy bankers, most of the politicians felt they couldn't support something so unpopular so close to an election. So the US administration will now have to come up with another plan. But while the talking goes on, so too does the turmoil.

Debate Prep

2008-09-23T16:04:00.002+01:00

Even though we've now got only six weeks to polling day, it's all gone quiet in the US presidential election. This week, both Barack Obama and John McCain are spending their time holed up with their advisors, getting ready for the first of their three televised debates.

They've both got good reason to make sure they're as ready as they can be. It's unlikely either man will be able to put in a performance so stunning, it ends his rival's chances of winning the election. Even though Senator Obama is by far the more gifted public speaker, Senator McCain is an experienced and able enough politician to be able to at least hold his own. And besides, both have repeated their speeches and policy positions so often over the last couple of years, it's difficult to imagine either coming up with anything we haven't heard hundreds of times before.

But the way in which this debate and the others to follow could be decisive, is if either candidate makes an obvious error. In a close race (and although Senator Obama has edged ahead in both the national polls and some of the important swing states, it remains very close) a terrible blunder could cost either man the White House.

And it's Barack Obama who has to be extra careful. Careful not to look like he's being too clever. Careful not to look as though he considers himself to be above his opponent. Twice in recent history a slightly haughty display from one of the candidates during the debates made a notable difference - in 1992, an obviously bored George Bush Snr looked at his watch during a town hall-style debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, while in 2000 Al Gore rolled his eyes at George W Bush. Something similar from Senator Obama this time could end up being very costly.

The Ghost (Not) At The Feast

2008-09-03T12:38:00.002+01:00

George W Bush has given a speech to the convention of his Republican party. But he wasn't at the event in Minnesota - instead the President delivered the address by video link from the White House, where he's been working on relief efforts following Hurricane Gustav. Because he was speaking down the line, Mr Bush's speech was cut to just eight minutes.

This was all very convenient for the Republican who hopes to replace him in the Oval Office, John McCain. For him, any association with the most unpopular president of modern times is very damaging. He's trying everything to prove he's different to Mr Bush. That's why just about every on-message Republican can't get through a sentence these days without describing Senator McCain as a 'maverick' who has often gone against the wishes of both Dubya and the Republican party.

This isn't complete nonsense. Bush and McCain hate each other. They really, really hate each other, and have done ever since the Bush campaign team in South Carolina used an extraordinary series of desperate dirty tricks to defeat McCain during their 2000 battle for the Republican nomination. Since then they've often been on opposite sides of various arguments, including when Mr McCain managed to shame the White House into going along with his ban on torturing terror suspects.

Hurricane Gustav's intervention was therefore pretty convenient for the McCain team, as it gave an excuse for President Bush to stay well away from their man. But it's not all good news. For all his unpopularity with the wider public, Mr Bush remains a hero to many within the Republican party itself, including many of those who were in the convention hall last night and greeted his TV appearance with enthusiasm. And for all his failings, Mr Bush is a great campaigner, one of the few public speakers who can match Barack Obama for whipping a crowd into a frenzy. By distancing himself so much from President Bush, John McCain will at best only get lukewarm support from many within his party, and may even see some Republican voters abandon him for a candidate such as the admittedly odd-looking Libertarian Bob Barr (keep an eye on Barr's home state of Georgia, where he is polling at 7% or so, which could be enough to tip it from McCain to Obama). If Senator McCain is going to become President McCain, it's a balancing act he needs to get exactly right.

Obama Ready For A Tough Battle

2008-08-29T10:20:00.002+01:00

Barack Obama has spoken to the Democratic national convention in Denver, to accept the party's nomination to be its candidate for president of the US. He delivered the speech not in the indoor arena where the rest of the convention has taken place, but in the nearby Mile High Stadium, home of the Denver Broncos, in front of 70,000 cheering supporters.

That must have seemed like a good idea at the time. But it was organised before Mr Obama's recent trip to Europe, when he spoke to an audience of 200,000 in Germany. A lot of people in America weren't too impressed when they saw the images of that appearance, believing the young senator was acting as if he'd already won the presidency. Democratic TV bosses made sure that during last night's speech, only a few shots of the whole crowd made it onto the screens, instead mixing Mr Obama's words with close-up images of the party faithful.

As for what Mr Obama actually had to say - he certainly tried to tone down the soaring rhetoric of some of his previous speeches. Instead there was plenty on the economy, and a significant section attacking his Republican opponent John McCain on foreign policy, arguably Mr McCain's greatest perceived strength. The tough language at least proves Mr Obama knows he's in for a tough battle if he's to get to the White House.

And with a poll on Tuesday putting Mr McCain two points ahead (he'd been behind, sometimes well behind, all summer long), Barack Obama certainly has it tough. Contrary to what most people in Europe and around the world seem to believe, he's currently only second favourite to win the election. And regardless of how good his speech last night was, there won't be much time for Americans to really pick over it.

Within hours, John McCain (72 today) will be back on top of the news as he announces his choice of running mate. Then all next week, the Republicans will hold their convention in the twin cities of Minnesota. Expect them to use the advantage of batting second to lay into Mr Obama at every opportunity, and expect John McCain to highlight his own life story, a story even more remarkable than the rags-to-riches tale offered by his opponent last night. After all that, expect John McCain to be more than just two points ahead in the polls. Seventy thousand people in Denver may have treated Barack Obama as the next president, but he still needs to convince plenty more if it's actually going to happen.

Obama Hits Trouble

2008-08-25T17:52:00.002+01:00

The Democrats are meeting in Denver this week, for the convention that will officially nominate Barack Obama as their candidate for president. But with just over a couple of months to go until polling day, the Obama campaign has run into trouble, and some polls now put him behind his Republican rival John McCain.

It's odd to think this is the same Obama who just a few weeks ago was playing to crowds of hundreds of thousands on a European tour that looked like an advance victory lap. Since then, the Olympics have distracted both the American media and the people, with attention only returning to the election at the weekend when Obama revealed his choice of running mate. For a candidate who has inspired plenty of people with his message of change, Joe Biden was a rather uninspiring choice.

But looking a bit presumptious and picking a worthy but dull vice-presidential candidate aren't the reasons why Barack Obama is suddenly struggling. Many of his supporters in the media say it's all down to the old Republican attack machine, trying to blacken (in both senses) their man as they've helped destroy the chances of candidates in the past. That's probably part of it, but the main factor for the change in the race isn't so much what Mr Obama's been up to - it's the qualities of his opponent.

John McCain's been underestimated from the start of this campaign, but he's got a popularity among independent, white Americans unmatched by any other politician, let alone Barack Obama. It's a popularity he's earned over decades, and he's boosted it still further in recent years with high-profile laws on issues such as ending torture and campaign finance reform. If he does become President McCain, it will be the main factor in his winning the White House.

Russia's Good Day To Bury Bad News

2008-08-09T11:55:00.002+01:00

The Olympics began in China yesterday. And with the world's attention on Beijing, Russia took the opportunity to invade another country. Red Army tanks have rolled into Georgia's province of South Ossetia, which is mostly full of Russians who've long wanted to break away from Georgia. The timing of the assault was surely no accident.

Although South Ossetia's been a restless place since before the collapse of the Soviet Union, its demands to separate from Georgia slipped down the agenda a bit during the 90s. In those days Georgia was being run by the former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Schevardnadze. But since a revolution in 2003, Georgia's been led by a pro-western government, which has annoyed both Russia and those Russians living in South Ossetia. In recent times, Russian-backed rebels have gradually gained control of large parts of the province, and the Georgians have used their own military to try to put down that rebellion.

And it's against that backdrop that Russia has moved in. It says it's only sending in its military to support the rebels. But Georgian leaders have already called it an invasion, insisting they won't let South Ossetia break away in order to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Funnily enough, that's exactly the same reason the Russians have long given for their desperation to hang on to one of their own breakaway areas, Chechnya. That makes the Kremlin's position on South Ossetia very hypocritical. Just don't expect that to bother them.

France And Rwanda Squabble Over History

2008-08-06T15:58:00.002+01:00

France is hitting back at claims included in an official Rwandan report, that top officials in the French government knew the genocide in that country back in 1994 was going to take place, but did nothing about it. And it's not just civil servants who are implicated. The report mentions names including then-President Mitterrand, the then-PM Edouard Balladur, as well as two other men who later went on to be Prime Minister - Alain Juppe and Dominique de Villepin. Strong stuff then, although the allegations aren't entirely new.

First a quick bit of background. Fifteen years ago, most people in Rwanda were ethnic Hutus, with Tutsis making up a significant minority. France certainly gave support and weapons to the Hutu government during its civil war against the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front, which ran throughout the early 90s. Shortly after that war ended, the Hutu president was killed when his plane was shot down. The Hutus (and the French) blamed the RPF, and within three months the Hutu regime had slaughtered almost a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus. At this point, the RPF managed to defeat the Hutus and its leader Paul Kagame took power, a position he still holds today.

The role of the French in all this has always been a bit unclear. As the genocide began in 1994, the UN imposed an arms embargo, but there's little doubt the French continued to supply weapons to the Hutu government. UN officials even intercepted one shipment, but were powerless to do anything, as the French got round the embargo by saying the arms deals had already been agreed before the sanctions were enforced. On a very basic level, France wanted to help the (French speaking) Hutus over the (English speaking) RPF, as a way of maintaining their own influence in central Africa. The current French foreign minister recently admitted that "political mistakes" were made during this time, and it's this decision to back the Hutus at all costs that he's referring to. It doesn't exactly make all those senior French politicians complicit in the genocide, but it's clear their approach to the crisis did precisely nothing to help end it.

As for the French, they've had plenty to say in the past about Mr Kagame. A couple of years ago a judge in France called for him to stand trial over the 1994 shooting down of the Rwandan president's plane, essentially accusing him of carrying out the act that began the genocide. In response, Mr Kagame broke off diplomatic relations with Paris and applied to join the Commonwealth, firmly taking Rwanda out of France's diplomatic orbit.

There are probably elements of truth in what both sides are saying. Mr Kagame's RPF probably did shoot down that plane, although it correctly points out there were plenty of other people with reason to do it. France probably did give far too much support to the Hutu government, even after it became obvious one of the worst ever acts of genocide was taking place. This ongoing spat has more to do with both sides trying to cover up their own roles in what happened, rather than getting at the truth about what the other side may have done. And whatever either side did do, it was nothing compared to the real bad guys within the Hutu government. And as the Rwanda war crimes tribunal winds down this year, there are still several yet to face justice.

Olmert Quits

2008-07-31T10:48:00.002+01:00

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he's going to step down in September. He's been weakened by a series of corruption allegations, the latest of which surrounds payments allegedly made to him by an American businessman, who says Mr Olmert spent the cash on luxury items.

Although it was the alleged corruption that eventually did for Mr Olmert, he's been in political trouble ever since the disaster of Israel's war against Hizbollah in the summer of 2006. His failure to make a convincing wartime leader, and his failure to keep the country's troops safe from capture made the Israeli people believe he wasn't up to the job of protecting Israel's security. And that was always going to be the real reason behind the end of his premiership.

His likely replacement is the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. She's a bit of a pragmatist, having helped broker Israel's pullout from Gaza. But any hopes of moving the peace process forward will depend on her early days in office, when she'll be more able to drag the Israeli government and people a bit closer to a proper deal. However, like Mr Olmert she (unusually for Israeli leaders over the years) doesn't have a military record to show off, and if she's unable to reassure the Israeli people she can keep them safe, expect her career to end up going the same way as Mr Olmert's.

Time Catches Up With Radovan Karadzic

2008-07-21T22:35:00.004+01:00

One of the world's most wanted men has been caught. A terse statement from the Serbian government reveals that the wartime political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, is in custody after more than a decade as a war crimes fugitive. He's accused of orchestrating the genocide of Bosnian Muslims during the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, and ordering the killing of civilians during the siege of Sarajevo.

His capture at least partly ends a long-running embarrassment for both the Serbian government and the rest of the world. Serbia's faltering attempts to try to become a more normal country on the European and world stage have been badly affected by the fact Karadzic and his old crony Ratko Mladic have been on the run. Successive Serb politicians have been against trying too hard to arrest the pair, partly because they and the Serb nationalism they stood for are still popular among a lot of Serb people. That sticking point's made it difficult for the Serbs to try to rebuild the country, both politically and economically.

But things are a bit different now. The new Serb government has said it wants to solve the issue of war crimes fugitives. The main reason it wants to do this is so it can improve the country's relations with the rest of the world, meaning a better economy and progress towards joining the EU. Its neighbour Croatia is about to do so, having finally captured its last significant alleged war criminal Ante Gotovina in 2005. Slovenia is already in the EU, and as a result is already far wealthier than the other former members of Yugoslavia.

It's unlikely Serbia will be able to make similar progress until Mladic is also appearing before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, but expect that to happen soon enough. It's taken 13 years since the end of the war, and eight since Slobodan Milosevic was overthrown, but Serbia's leaders are finally proving they really do want to take their country forward.

Israel Humiliated By Hizbollah, Again

2008-07-16T18:24:00.003+01:00

The bodies of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbollah two years ago have been returned to Israel as part of a swap arrangement. In return, Israel handed over the remains of 200 or so Hizbollah and Palestinian fighters, plus five Lebanese prisoners who are still alive. Among those men, the notorious Samir Qantar, who'd been locked up for his role in the deaths of four Israelis during a raid 29 years ago.

Today's a clear diplomatic victory for Hizbollah, and a humiliation for Israel. The capture of the two soldiers (who, it seems, probably died in the incident itself or shortly after) prompted Israel to begin a bloody but brief war against Hizbollah, in which the militants were able to fight the might of the Israeli army to something of a standstill. That was a pretty big trauma for the Israeli nation, as it realised its military was no longer strong enough to simply destroy any threats to its security, as it had done in the past.

The prisoner swap is the final part of that humilitation. Israel's been forced to pay a high price for the return of its two dead soldiers. Hizbollah behaved disgracefully but predictably, by refusing to admit the pair were dead all along, leading to hope they could still be alive - hope that was only finally extinguished for the families today. But Hizbollah's strength on the battlefield and behaviour around the negotiating table helped them to strike a very hard bargain. Because of its military weakness two summers ago, Israel has had to hand over all of the Lebanese prisoners remaining in its jails - effectively buying Hizbollah off in the hope there won't be any further raids on its territory to try to capture soldiers to use as bargaining tools. Now we'll see whether an emboldened Hizbollah tries something more dramatic as it continues its efforts to smash Israel. It's a prospect the Israeli people and politicians must dread.

Zimbabwe And A Political Football

2008-06-26T23:30:00.004+01:00

The run-off presidential election is about to take place in Zimbabwe. After the opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out amid beatings and killings of his supporters, the winner will be President Robert Mugabe. There's been some grumbling from neighbouring governments in southern Africa, not happy at both the general embarrassment of Mugabe's behaviour and the amount of Zimbabwean refugees steadily heading across the area's borders. But any hope of a political solution still seems to rest with the 'quiet diplomacy' strategy of South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki - a strategy that has been a spectacular failure.

It's difficult for Britain to put more pressure on Mugabe, because any intervention by the former colonial power feeds into the anti-British propaganda that he uses to help explain the country's dismal economic state to his people. However, something the British government did this week offers a clue to the way forward. Next year's cricket tour to England by the Zimbabwe team was called off. It's a small sporting sanction, but there's a bigger one the rest of the world can take to put the heat on South Africa.

Major nations around the world should threaten to take the 2010 football World Cup away from South Africa. It was sporting sanctions that played a significant role in undermining South Africa's apartheid government during the 1970s and 80s. Now, the threat of another one could be the blunt instrument needed to prod Mr Mbeki into forcing Mugabe into a political deal. Just as the Beijing Olympics will be for China, the 2010 World Cup's supposed to be the party that shows South Africa off to the world. It's a prize the South African government values more than anything else. It's the lever the world needs to pull, to try to end the killing in Zimbabwe.

Ireland's No Means Trouble For Europe

2008-06-13T19:09:00.003+01:00

Ireland has voted no in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The document includes various rules designed to make the EU run more smoothly, now that it contains 27 nations. But the Irish no vote means it's likely it'll never come into force, at least not in its current form.

The EU's not just looking for a Plan B now, but a Plan C. The Lisbon Treaty is very similar to the EU Constitution, which was scrapped when French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005. This time, 26 of the 27 EU countries, including Britain, decided they didn't want a referendum. Publicly, governments argued such a vote wasn't necessary because the treaty wouldn't dramatically change the way individual countries are run. But really, EU leaders didn't want to hold votes because they feared the treaty would be rejected. Because of its constitution, Ireland had to hold a vote, and it produced the result EU leaders dreaded.

It's difficult to see what the EU can do now. As the club grows, it's becoming increasingly tough to run, with even slower decision-making and more of the bureaucracy the EU is notorious for. Pressure's likely to be put on Ireland to hold another referendum on a slightly different version of the treaty. Similar things have happened in Ireland and elsewhere in the past, but forcing a further vote would be unpopular as it would show blatant contempt for the will of the Irish people. Plus, there'd be no guarantee the outcome would be any different.

Instead, look for the EU to have a third go at this in a couple of years time, when Croatia becomes the union's 28th member. Another new treaty would take a lot more slow, painstaking work to put together, and it would have to be less wide-ranging than either Lisbon or the original EU Constitution. But the EU's going to have to try. Otherwise it's going to become even less efficient, and therefore even more unpopular.

Obama And Clinton

2008-06-04T23:22:00.003+01:00

Barack Obama has finally beaten Hillary Clinton in the battle to be the Democrats' nominee for the US presidential election. But even though he's got enough delegates to win, she still hasn't conceded. The reason's not down to some deluded notion that she still might somehow sneak in to be the nominee. It's something far more pragmatic - she wants to be his running mate, and therefore if he wins, to be the vice-president.

The main reason why Senator Clinton is happy enough to settle for vice-president, having spent so much energy and (her own) cash in trying to become president, is that being vice-president is the best way to get another shot at the presidency in the future. Many have gone on to be their party's nominee for the top job, even though they've often failed to win. There's also the fact that, should Senator Obama lose to John McCain in November's general election, Mrs Clinton would be the obvious choice to be the Democrats' pick in four years' time. Admittedly, she was for a long time the obvious pick for 2008 too, but she still has a famous name and a base of support that hardly any American politicians can match.

And it's that reason that could persuade Senator Obama to go along with the idea. She wouldn't be his first choice of nominee; he'd probably rather have a white man from a Southern state with strong national security experience, the sort of vice-president who could allay some of the fears many Americans have about him. But Senator Clinton's clear victories over Senator Obama in states featuring a large number of white working-class people, and Hispanics, prove that she can also reach parts of the electorate Mr Obama has struggled to. Even though he may have serious reservations about her, such as the baggage her husband may bring to the campaign and his possible presidency, and also the fact they don't really seem to like each other much, she's very difficult to ignore. Obama/Clinton may not be his idea of a dream ticket, but if she plays her cards well, he may have no choice.

Change Ahead In Israel

2008-05-27T18:52:00.002+01:00

Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is in deep political trouble. He's just faced a day of damaging testimony by an American businessman relating to an alleged corruption scandal. It seems Mr Olmert, in the days before he became Prime Minister, used to accept tens of thousands of dollars in cash on a fairly regular basis, much of it apparently spent on some of the finer things in life.

So far, so reminiscent of the financial scandal that recently ended Bertie Ahern's time as Taoiseach. But it probably won't be the trail of money that'll cause Mr Olmert's eventual downfall - it'll be the fact he just isn't that popular. Ever since the disastrous war with Hizbollah almost two years ago, he's been judged by the Israeli people as someone who fails the basic test of an Israeli leader - is he strong enough to keep the country secure? With rockets from Hamas strongholds in the Gaza Strip still peppering Israeli territory, for most Israelis the answer to that question is no. Whatever happens with his financial irregularities, Mr Olmert surely won't be Prime Minister after the next election.

The scandal could bring that election forward though, and a familiar figure is poised to benefit. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has led his right-wing Likud party from political humiliation just two years ago to being a strong opposition. His reputation as a political tough guy means he's likely to become Prime Minister after Israelis next go to the polls, as they seek a strongman to protect them from the various threats they face.

Those hoping for progress towards a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine crisis might be aghast at the thought of a Prime Minister Netanyahu, but there would be cause to be optimistic with such a man at the helm of Israel. If anyone's going to get the Israeli people to go along with the idea of doing the necessary evils such as talking to Hamas, it's going to be someone like him - someone they believe can look after their interests. An increasingly weak leader like Prime Minister Olmert just doesn't have the authority to do that. Until he's gone, there won't be any progress at all.

Obama Woos The White Working Class

2008-05-15T11:07:00.002+01:00

John Edwards, a former contender for the Democrat nomination for the US presidency, has decided to support Barack Obama. It's another setback for Hillary Clinton's dwindling chances of winning the nomination, despite her healthy victory in the West Virginia primary the other day.

The Edwards endorsement is significant because it goes right to the heart of one of Senator Obama's big problems - his lack of appeal to white working class voters. This was most recently proved in West Virgnia, an overwhelmingly white state, which Senator Clinton won by more than 40 points. Senator Obama's controversial remark earlier in the campaign that many whites are "bitter" and so cling to guns or religion, is something he'll have to work hard to live down.

That's where John Edwards could come in. During his own run for the presidency both this year and in 2004, he was hugely popular among white working class voters, and won the support of many big unions. His endorsement won't on its own suddenly guarantee all those supporters follow him in backing Senator Obama, but it could help move the issue down the political agenda a bit. Both the media and senior members of the Democratic party may be less likely to constantly bring up Senator Obama's lack of appeal among white working class voters, which ought to allow some of his other messages to get through more clearly.

This might not be the last we hear of John Edwards in this race. He could join Senator Obama as his running mate for November's general election. Although there are reasons why this might not be a great idea - he after all lost four years ago when on John Kerry's ticket - John Edwards could bring plenty to the Obama campaign. Not only would he help win over those white working class voters, but as a southerner he could improve their chances in some important states, and he's a credible alternative president, which is an unspoken but crucial part of being a candidate for the vice presidency. Whatever happens, there really is just about no hope left for Senator Clinton.

Burma's Cyclone

2008-05-06T22:29:00.002+01:00

More than 20-thousand people are now known to have died in the cyclone which struck Burma. A further 40-thousand are missing. International aid agencies are doing what they can to assist rescue efforts, but the Burmese military government has been slow to let outsiders into the country.

There seems to be a lot of anger among Burmese people at what has gone on in the last few days. Not just the usual anger and frustration of victims of a natural disaster, although that's often a powerful thing. Rather there's anger at the military government's failure to warn anyone, other than regime officials, that the cyclone was on its way. The government had a good couple of days' notice the cyclone might well land a direct hit, but did nothing to avert this human disaster.

Burmese Buddhists may well be giving plenty of thought to the old legend that, when in times of bad leadership, an angry God sends famine, pestilence and storms as a way of showing displeasure. Just a few months on from the pro-democracy protests, which the regime sent in the army rather more quickly than they have done this week, surely many in the country will now have had enough of incompetent military rule. If and when the regime falls, this will surely prove to have been a pivotal moment.

Raul's Cuba

2008-05-02T00:21:00.002+01:00

Raul Castro has attended Cuba's traditional May Day celebrations in central Havana. As usual, lots of people turned up, but in a break with the tradition of his big brother and predecessor Fidel, Raul didn't make a four-hour speech about the glory of the revolution. It's just the latest in a series of subtle changes since Raul took power for good earlier this year.

Recently Raul's announced various measures making things in Cuba a bit more liberal, a bit more western if you like. The controversial ban on Cuban citizens staying in tourist hotels in resorts like Varadero has been lifted. He's also made it legal for ordinary Cubans to have mobile phones. It's now easier for state workers to own their homes and pass them on to their children. Even wage limits are being abolished to, wait for it, allow employers to offer more incentives.

If all this has the scent of capitalism about it, you'd be right. After years of 'defending the revolution' by keeping things strictly communist, Cuba's new leader knows the regime must change if it's going to survive. Change may be slight and gradual, but it's clear Raul has his eye on what his comrades in China have done. Retaining a one-party state while slowly feeding in limited free-market reforms to the economy, just like Beijing, is the path he's set out on. And as long as Cubans are satisfied by their new-found ability to own more and do more, and if that doesn't cause the pride they still feel in their revolution to fade, it'll probably work.

Obama's Ups And Downs

2008-04-21T16:59:00.002+01:00

Barack Obama seems likely to move closer to securing the Democrat nomination for the US presidential election tomorrow. The latest primary takes place in Pennsylvania, and if Senator Obama can either beat, or come a close second to his rival Hillary Clinton, it'll all-but-guarantee that he'll be the one taking on the Republican contender John McCain in November's general election. His lead over Senator Clinton is already just about unassailable, and unless she can match the ten-point victory she managed in Pennsylvania's neighbour Ohio, her hopes will probably be over.

But even though he's on the verge of finally becoming the Democrat nominee, the long campaign is storing up trouble for Senator Obama. His recent remark that people in small-town America are "bitter" about job losses, and therefore cling to their religion and guns, has not been enough on its own to knock his campaign completely off course. But it, and other issues like it, may yet come back to haunt him in the autumn.

Over the months, several apparently minor incidents have cropped up, that the Republicans will gleefully throw back at Senator Obama in negative ads. He was spotted not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, his wife said she'd never felt proud of America until her husband began campaigning, and most seriously, his links to controversial preacher Jeremiah Wright were discovered (that scandal's already had plenty of rotation on Fox News and elsewhere).

Senator Obama may have inspired many Americans with his messages of hope earlier in the campaign. But the Republicans will do everything in their power to destroy his character, much as they did to John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, and most famously, Michael Dukakis in 1988. With their candidate John McCain likely to make his own personal character the main part of his own pitch to the American people, things are only going to get tougher for Barack Obama.

China's Olympic Embarrassment

2008-04-11T12:46:00.002+01:00

The Olympic torch is continuing its troubled progress around the world. After pro-Tibet and other protestors disrupted it in London, Paris and San Francisco, it's now reached Buenos Aires.

So far the torch has had to be protected by a horde of Chinese security men in tracksuits, with lots of local police next to them - hardly the sort of image the Olympic movement wants to be associated with. And despite public insistence that the show will go on as planned, there's no doubt that privately the Chinese leaders will be deeply embarrassed by how the torch relay has gone. With one world leader after another announcing they won't be attending the opening ceremony, that embarrassment will only be felt more deeply as the Games draw near.

The Olympics were supposed to be China's big global coming out party. With impressive, sparkly new venues, and numerous gold medal winning performances from its athletes, China was going to show us what an advanced and powerful society it's become. This will probably still happen. But the protestors have already succeeded in making sure Tibet and other human rights issues will hang around the Games, filling column inches and broadcast time, and generally spoiling China's party.

Don't feel too sorry for the Chinese government though. When bidding for the Games, they told the IOC the process of holding an Olympics would help open the country up, and help it improve its human rights record. That hasn't happened, so the protests are fair enough. They might even just change something, although don't count on it. The Chinese may be embarrassed, but as they're proving in insisting the torch relay continues, they're also as stubborn as hell.

Bye Bye Bertie

2008-04-02T18:03:00.002+01:00

Bertie Ahern has announced his desicion to resign as Ireland's Prime Minister, after more than a decade in power. He's been at the centre of a long-running scandal about his private finances, dating back to his period as finance minister during the early 90s. Mr Ahern will take the opportunity for one final moment on the international stage, when he addresses the US Congress at the end of this month, before formally standing down early in May.

The only thing most people may recall about Bertie Ahern is that he's a jovial sort of chap, who played an important role in securing the Good Friday Agreement a decade ago. They might be surprised to hear he's had to quit because of his past dodgy dealing. But then, he's the political protege of Ireland's hugely controversial and corrupt former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, who once called Ahern "the most skilful, the most devious and the most cunning" politician he'd ever known. Quite a testimonial.

It's certainly internationally that Mr Ahern will be most fondly remembered, and not just for his role in Northern Ireland. He was arguably the most pro-European of EU leaders, and not only put his country at the forefront of the traditionally Franco-German club, but also helped drive through important changes, overseeing the expansion of the union during his six-month presidency in 2004. And regardless of the grubby scandal that's badly tainted his image at home, Mr Ahern is surely a serious contender to be the EU's first full-time president. We haven't seen the last of this formidable politician.

Mugabe Hangs On

2008-03-31T17:45:00.002+01:00

Results from Zimbabwe's presidential and parliamentary elections are slowly being released by the country's electoral commission. Despite claims from the opposition MDC that they've won a thumping victory, the results we've seen so far show them roughly level with the Zanu PF party led by President Robert Mugabe. Given the suspiciously slow speed at which the results are being released, as well as Mugabe's past form for rigging elections, it's fair to assume something dodgy's going on.

But the signs are time could at last be just about up for Mr Mugabe. One reason is the election campaign itself, which went off surprisingly peacefully. In the past, the military and police would have been quick to use violence to suppress the opposition. That didn't happen nearly as much this time, suggesting support for Mr Mugabe within the army may have melted away. In the event of a dubious election result being hotly disputed by the opposition and its supporters, which side the military chooses to support would probably prove decisive.

Then there's the apparent scale of vote-rigging that would be required to change these results. Unofficial tallies released by the opposition and others show Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC with around two-thirds of the vote both in the parliamentary and presidential polls. Zanu PF supporters and even Mr Mugabe himself must know to declare him the outright victor, as the state-owned Herald newspaper is apparently going to do in the morning, would be just too ridiculous. But the sad truth about Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, where inflation runs at 100,000% is that nothing is too ridiculous. Don't be surprised if he tries to hang on once again.

Keeping It All Together

2008-03-25T12:14:00.003Z

African Union troops have helped the military of the Comoros Islands recapture the rogue island of Anjouan after a rebellion that's lasted a year. What happens in a tiny group of islands off the east coast of Africa doesn't have much obvious significance for the rest of the world, but it's another sign of how desperate countries both large and small are to keep their territory intact.

The two African countries which sent AU troops to help the Comoran authorities were Sudan and Tanzania. Both nations are struggling to control breakaway regions at home - in Sudan's case it's Darfur, while Tanzania's got Zanzibar. If African countries had allowed the Anjouan rebellion to succeed in Comoros, it would have set a dangerous precedent of permitting a restless part of a country to strike out on its own. No wonder then, that Sudan and Tanzania were so keen to help.

This idea of making sure secessionists don't get their way has coloured the recent international debate over Serbia and Kosovo. Russia, which has several restless republics in the Caucasus, was and is Serbia's biggest supporter. China, which has faced some grim international headlines of late over Tibet, kept firmly out of the Kosovo issue. You can bet both were watching events in the little Comoros Islands pretty closely.

"Strategic Victory"

2008-03-19T14:56:00.002Z

President Bush has used a speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, to claim the recent reduction in violence there marks a 'strategic victory' in his war on terrorism. The number of attacks in Iraq has certainly fallen sharply over the last nine months or so, since more US troops were deployed as part of the so-called surge. But to claim any kind of victory is just as premature as Mr Bush's infamous 'mission accomplished' address following the defeat of Saddam Hussein in May 2003.

Far from being a strategic victory, the folly of US policy in Iraq was based around a catastrophic strategic misjudgement. Lots of very clever and important people thought Iraq would quickly turn into a relatively stable democracy, and that this would spread throughout other countries in the Middle East, just as democracy spread throughout Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. But there was one flaw with this idea. It was spectacularly wrong. Baghdad is nothing like Bucharest.

These days things are indeed finally looking up in Iraq. Perhaps if the US had committed far more troops in the early days after the invasion, the security situation would have been good enough to allow democratic institutions to take hold, as they're still struggling to do now. But the incompetence of how the Bush administration handled the whole thing means we'll never know. If Iraq does eventually turn out to be the beacon of democracy the US has long wanted it to be, it will be despite President Bush, rather than directly because of him. We can expect more speeches from him like today's, in which he tries to claim some amount of credit for things that are going well. But in a few months we'll be able to ignore him - then it'll be up to someone else to solve all the problems.

Northern Kosovo, Northern Ireland?

2008-03-17T14:46:00.002Z

We've seen the worst violence in Kosovo since the former province of Serbia declared independence last month. UN police have been forced to pull out of Serb areas of the northern city of Mitrovica, after clashes with Serbs angry at the fact they're no longer living in Serbia. While most people in Kosovo are ethnic Albanians, hence their desire for self-government, most people in the northern part are Serbs. Unsurprisingly, this ethnic split creates tension in divided cities such as Mitrovica.

More elections are coming up in Serbia in May, after the governing coalition collapsed amid squabbling over what to do about Kosovo. A narrow majority of Serb politicians would like their country to join the EU one day, but with the big European countries recognising Kosovo's independence, that makes their pro-EU stance considerably less popular. Others would rather throw in their lot with Serbia's old ally Russia, and it's these nationalists who may now take power in May's elections.

They want things to go back to how they've been for centuries, with Kosovo as a province of Serbia. While that may not happen, some kind of compromise offer could emerge, with nationalist Serbs pushing for the partition of Kosovo. Much like Ireland, the northern Serb-dominated part could once again become part of Serbia, and in return a nationalist Serb government may agree to recognise the independence of the rest of Kosovo. Such a deal would probably be unpalatable to the Kosovars, not to mention most of the rest of the world. But don't be surprised if the borders of the Balkans are re-drawn again in the near future.