Clinton and Obama's showdown

A taste of that bitter debate...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7260000/newsid_7266100/7266181.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1

DEBATES, DEBATES... Spain brings government and opposition face to face; America brings... two rivals within the same side?

No knockout in Democrats' TV bout
By Kevin Connolly BBC News, Cleveland


It was the most eagerly awaited debate of the primary season so far - another meeting between evenly matched contenders that cried out for the kind of title once reserved for the great heavyweight boxing contests of the past. The 1970s had the Rumble in the Jungle and the Thriller in Manila. Campaign 2008 brought you the Confrontation in Cleveland.

It was Hillary Clinton who did most of the pre-fight publicity work, warning her rival that she wanted to debate his "behaviour in the campaign" and denouncing him for mis-representing her health and trade policies in his campaign literature. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," she had thundered.
The contrast between that attack and her tone in the last debate a few days earlier, when she told her rival she was honoured to share the stage with him, made the prospect of the Ohio debate particularly intriguing.

Clearly, the Clinton Camp cannot decide how to deal with the Obama bandwagon. So, over the course of the build-up to Cleveland, Mrs Clinton has tried implying that she likes him - she praised his "eloquence" last week; but also hinting that she finds him slightly ridiculous - she had a go at parodying his speaking style at the weekend. Like sportswriters assigned to cover a brilliant but inconsistent team we wondered which Hillary would turn up - the sharp-tongued avenger of the last few days, or the conciliatory and rather philosophical figure of last week.

Tension

Journalists are often (and sometimes quite correctly) criticised for focusing on the personal, rather than the political in the race for the White House - of ignoring complex questions of public policy in favour of reporting on the campaign as a combination of horse race and soap opera.
For this 20th Democratic debate of the season - and the second between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama in the last five days, it felt absolutely right to concentrate on the atmosphere between the two candidates, because it offered the best clue as to where the two camps really feel the balance of advantage really lies between them.
And at that level at least, Cleveland didn't disappoint.
It began with a debate on the differences between their healthcare programmes - differences which in truth are not enormous. I suspect if you read the transcripts of the proceedings you might get the impression that it was a dull exchange - at 16 minutes it was certainly a long one. In fact, it crackled with tension. Everyone in America has by now heard the two Democratic senators comparing and contrasting their health plans, and in Cleveland they did it again.

Attacks

This time the exchanges were snippy and occasionally ill-tempered. You could sense the effort each had to make to force themselves to listen to the criticism. Eye contact was avoided, facial expressions became glassy with the effort of appearing to listen patiently.
It was revealing stuff. Mrs Clinton went after Mr Obama again, charging him with using "very disturbing" tactics and misrepresenting her healthcare plans.
His game plan was clearly to meet the charges with a kind of patient reasonableness which seemed designed to provoke her into being more aggressive still. At one point he said: "Her campaign has constantly sent out negative attacks on us... we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns."
Senator Obama's tactic of using the debate to demonstrate his credentials as a man who can bring people together reached a peak towards the end of the evening, when he said of Hillary Clinton... "she would be worthy as a nominee... she's an outstanding public servant" before pointing out that he thought he was a better candidate.
Senator Clinton again showed herself to be a master of detail - and she got across her core idea that she is a "fighter" - but she scored the only real own goal of the night when she complained that she was "always" invited to answer questions first... it seemed to be leading to a charge that the media were giving her rival an easier night, but she allowed the issue to peter out without developing the argument, and that simply seemed peevish.


I suspect these debates only really shift the mood of the voters when a candidate makes a glaring error, or delivers a killer blow - and none of the 20 Democratic debates have been rich in such moments. Cleveland certainly wasn't.
As to who won the debate... well, both candidates are highly-capable , well-rehearsed, and highly experienced debaters and the truth is that while each is capable of scoring an occasional point off the other neither has shown any ability to land a knockout blow. In a situation where Barack Obama has a lead in delegates for the summer nominating conference, and has the momentum with him, he is probably favoured by what might be described in sporting terms as a low-scoring draw.
The bottom line from all this might in the end be that Hillary Clinton needed a clear victory more than Mr Obama, and neither really got one.

SOURCE: adapted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7266212.stm

Published: 2008/02/27 07:11:44 GMT

Is independence for Kosovo a good thing?

The Big Question: Why are so many countries opposed to Kosovo gaining its independence?

By Paul Vallely The Independent, Tuesday, 19 February 2008

Why are we asking this now?
Because Kosovo this week declared itself to be Europe's newest country. Some 17 years after the dissolution of Yugoslavia – and after a ghastly cavalcade of ethnic cleansing, gruesome atrocities, forced expulsions and a civil war that killed 10,000 before Nato intervened – the people of Kosovo have declared themselves independent.
Since 1999 they have lived under a United Nations protectorate while conducting negotiations with the neighbouring Serbs to find a mutually acceptable constitutional status for the region. When the talks broke down, the provisional government unilaterally declared independence as the Republic of Kosovo. Some 90 per cent of the two million people are ethnic Albanians, just 10 per cent Serbs. Now the creators of the world's 193rd independent country have sent 192 letters to governments around the world seeking formal recognition of their independence.

What do the Serbs think?
They are very unhappy. They regard Kosovo as the heart of its state since medieval times, even though 90 per cent of its population is of a different ethnicity. The Serbian prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica, described Kosovo as a "fake country".

So who's on what side?

The countries who participated in the Nato strikes against Serbia to end the atrocities, led by the United States. President George Bush has already officially recognised Kosovo as an independent state. So will most of the big European nations – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – and the Japanese government is "moving toward recognising" Kosovo, pronouncing developments in line with Japan's criteria for recognising states.
Other EU members – Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, have said they will not. Other countries opposed to an independent Kosovo include Sri Lanka and Indonesia. The neighbouring Balkan states are also divided. Croatia and Macedonia are pro Kosovo, but Bosnia and Herzegovina is not. Other states, like Malta and Portugal, want Kosovo's future be decided at the UN Security Council.

Why is the international community so divided?
In part it reflects each government's differing sense of whether the ethnic Albanians, now Kosovans, were primarily the victims of the Serbs in the war a decade ago. "Serbia effectively lost Kosovo through its own actions in the 1990s," said the Irish foreign minister, Dermot Ahern. "The bitter legacy of the killings of thousands of civilians in Kosovo and the ethnic cleansing of many more has effectively ruled out any restoration of Serbian dominion in Kosovo."
In part it reflects convictions about the solutions to intractable foreign relations problems. In part it is a reflection of the domestic priorities of some governments who fear that support for Kosovo's unilateral declaration could fan separatism in their own countries.

What are the arguments?
The Americans, and most of Nato, believe that a definition resolution of the status of Kosovo is essential for the Balkans to become stable. "A negotiated solution was not possible," said the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "Peace and stability are the order of the day," said the British foreign secretary, David Miliband. Such is the population imbalance between ethnic Albanians and Serbs that autonomy was inevitable.

The other side counters with high-minded arguments about the inviolability of national sovereignty. "We will not recognise [Kosovo] because we consider," said the Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, "this does not respect international law".

But it is perhaps significant that those opposing recognition mostly have problems with their own separatist or secessionist movements. "Cyprus, for reasons of principle, cannot recognise and will not recognise a unilateral declaration of independence," the Cypriot Foreign Minister, Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, said. "This is an issue of principle, of respect of international law, but also an issue of concern that it will create a precedent in international relations."
It had, she said, perhaps protesting too much, "nothing to do with the occupied Cyprus, it's not because we're afraid that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) would declare independence because they already did it in 1983 and got a very strong reaction from the (UN) Security Council."

There was similar talk from Sri Lanka. "We note that the declaration of independence was made without the consent of the majority of the people of Serbia and is a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, which enshrines the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states," a Sri Lankan government statement said, suggesting Kosovo could create an unmanageable precedent in "the conduct of international relations and the established global order of sovereign states".

Those on the other side dismiss this. Kosovo, said the British Foreign Secretary, was a "unique situation which deserves a unique response".

What about the Russians?
It too has its secessionists. Usman Ferzauli, the man who styles himself the Foreign Minister of Chechnya, has just, helpfully, backed Kosovo's declaration. But when he talks about "leading an armed struggle against the world's most aggressive and militarised power for the latest 14 years" he is not talking about the ethnic Albanians but their fellow Muslims in Chechnya, who enjoyed a brief period of autonomy before Moscow re-established control.
There are bonds of cultural and ethnic kinship between the Serbs and Russians. Europe is increasingly wary of the Slavic Bear. The Russians still have their carrier fleet anchored not that far away. Russia insists there is no basis for changing a 1999 security council resolution on Kosovo's status – and says that Belgrade must agree to any change.

What is likely to happen?
The US and the European members of the UN Security Council will back Kosovo's independence. But Russia and China will not. Russia will block Kosovo's membership of the United Nations. Serbia will use all diplomatic means at its disposal to block Kosovo's recognition – and will probably block Kosovo's access to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe.

The real questions are less glamorous and more profound. Unemployment in Kosovo is over 40 per cent, corruption and organised crime is bad, and wealth per person is just 5 per cent of the EU average. The troubles are far from over yet.

Is independence for Kosovo a good thing?

Yes...
* 90 per cent of its people are non-Serbs and should be allowed to determine their own fate
* Serbia effectively lost Kosovo through its own actions in the atrocities and ethnic cleansing of the 1990s
* Kosovan independence is the logical working out of the collapse of Communist Yugoslavia after the Berlin Wall came down

No...
* Kosovo has formed the heart of the state of Serbia since medieval times
* All the people of Serbia should have been allowed to vote on the issue of Kosovan independence
* It sets a dangerous precedent for other parts of the world where rebels want to break away

Riots in France 2007

Riots in France 2007 (video links)

1- FRANCE RIOTING 2007 © Independent Television News Limited 2007 (British accent)
Listening exercise (listening for specific vocabulary) available in the downloading area.
http://itn.co.uk/videos/e5705fcbf8b0e0c041a7cdd837221e6a.html

2- FRANCE RIOTING 2007 CBC news (American accent)
http://www.mediascrape.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=35951&rootVideoPanelType=1

Hilarious string of misunderstandings: Why the names of the key players in the news are important

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-oS5MOLXfU

Ex-chief justice urges lawyers to rise up against Musharraf
Declan Walsh in Islamabad Adapted from The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2007

Pakistan's deposed chief justice urged embattled lawyers to defy President Pervez Musharraf's crackdown yesterday as the government considered delaying elections by several months.
Speaking from house arrest, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry told a gathering of lawyers in Islamabad to "rise up and restore the constitution". "Go to every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is the time to sacrifice," he said. "Don't be afraid. God will help us and the day will come when you'll see the constitution supreme and no dictatorship for a long time."

But street protests diminished in the rest of the country as security forces continued to crush dissent.
Continuing western pressure, Gordon Brown "strongly urged" a return to constitutional rule. More than 2,500 people have been arrested since Saturday's declaration of emergency rule, under which the constitution has been suspended, television channels silenced and independent-minded judges fired. The largest demonstration was in the southern city of Multan, where riot police attacked hundreds of lawyers, leaving some bloodied as they were loaded into police vans.
The prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, convened the cabinet to consider the timing of elections due by mid-January but no decision was taken. However one minister indicated they could be postponed by up to three months, despite US and British pressure for early polls.
The opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who flew from Karachi to Islamabad, said the government had already decided to delay elections by at least a year. "I know this from the inside," she told Associated Press. Ms Bhutto, whose party has avoided the worst of the crackdown thanks to a recent political deal with Gen Musharraf, said her party would "build pressure" on Gen Musharraf to resign from the army and hold early elections by protesting outside the national parliament. "We are very worried that if Pakistan implodes it could have far-reaching consequences," she said. "This is a nuclear armed country and it is facing a very serious crisis." Ms Bhutto said she would meet opposition leaders instead of Gen Musharraf.
Last night the acting leader of Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League party, Javed Hashmi, was in jail, as was Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the Jamaat Islami party.
Former cricketer Imran Khan was on the run, having fled his home before police could seize him. Mr Khan, who leads a small opposition party, issued a statement through his former wife Jemima, in which he pledged to lead an underground movement against the emergency rule.
"The police have ransacked my house and ill-treated my family members," he said in the message."Our aim is to continue the struggle and mobilise the youth of the country from underground. This move of Musharraf's will ignite militancy and extremism."
Although Gen Musharraf has used Islamist violence to justify the imposition of emergency rule, many Pakistanis see it as a last-ditch effort to cling to power. But street protests have failed to ignite support outside politicians, lawyers and human rights activists.
Yesterday about 200 lawyers listened outside the offices of the Islamabad bar association as Justice Chaudhry delivered his speech. "This is a tough time in the history of Pakistan. We may have to give our lives," said Shakeel A Mian, as lawyers marched around the marketplace afterwards. But few of the shopkeepers or legal clerks in the market looked inclined to join them. A court in Lahore granted bail to 54 human rights activists, 30 of whom were released last night. Friends said the US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, had lobbied for their release.

Musharraf's chief critic silenced as lawyers continue protests

Musharraf's chief critic silenced as lawyers continue protests
Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Jeremy Page in Karachi Times Online November 6, 2007

A call to protest by the chief critic of the Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, was cut short today when the Government shut down parts of the mobile telephone network in the capital.
Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhury, the dismissed Chief Justice of Pakistan, who is now under house arrest in Islamabad, used a telephone conference this morning to urge lawyers to demonstrate against the state of emergency imposed by General Musharraf on Saturday. Mr Chaudhury, a figurehead for the opposition, made the call as the Government met to discuss a schedule for parliamentary elections amid mounting international pressure to lift the emergency.
"I want lawyers to spread my message: the time for sacrifice has come and to stand up for the constitution," he said to cheers from supporters. "There will be no dictatorship." Lawyers outside his home shouted: “Musharraf is a criminal — we will not accept uniforms or bullets!” The teleconference was cut off after two minutes when the mobile network went dead, but the move failed to prevent lawyers from demonstrating for a second day in several cities. The worst unrest was in the central city of Multan, where police used batons to disperse about 1,000 lawyers as they tried to leave a court complex to start a street rally.
Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister, was flying from Karachi to Islamabad this afternoon for a meeting with other opposition leaders to discuss whether to join the lawyers’ protests. The Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy will meet tomorrow morning ahead of a planned rally by Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party in the city of Rawalpindi, next to Islamabad.
Analysts say that General Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in 1999, now has little room to manoeuvre as he has lost the support of moderate and Islamist Pakistanis alike - as well as many in the international community. But he is still showing no signs of bowing to the domestic and international pressure to lift the emergency, which has banned public meetings and taken private television networks off the air.
The Government today backed away from comments from the Attorney-General yesterday suggesting that a decision had been made to hold elections, as originally planned, by January 15. Instead, it said it was meeting to discuss the election timetable, repeating General Musharraf’s pledge to stick as closely as possible to the original schedule. The Government also dismissed international criticism of the emergency, urging its Western allies to be patient.
President Bush led international calls yesterday for General Musharraf to release hundreds of opposition activists, step down as army chief and hold elections as originally scheduled. General Musharraf told foreign ambassadors that he imposed the emergency to stop the judiciary and media impeding his campaign against Islamist militants.
The General has deployed more than 90,000 troops to help fight to al-Qaeda and Taleban militants in northwestern Pakistan since allying himself with the United States after the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan's Interior Ministry said that a record 667 people had been killed and 2,000 injured in "terrorist" attacks this year, including an unprecedented 43 suicide bombings.
Mr Chaudhury, however, said that General Musharraf imposed the emergency because it feared an imminent Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his victory in an October 6 presidential election.
General Musharraf tried to dismiss Mr Chaudhury in March, fearing that the independent-minded judge could thwart his re-election plans, but was forced to re-instate him in July after massive protests by lawyers. Mr Chaudhury was dismissed again on Saturday, along with eight other judges, for refusing to endorse the emergency. The others are also under house arrest, some of them locked inside their own homes.