OCTOBER 2007

“There is not a single indication that the explosion has any relation with the political process that Kosovo is going through.” said and Kosovo Govt. spokesman.

Residents in the area also speculated about organised crime saying the damaged shops were owned by a controversial businessman and gang leader, involved in a dispute with members of the Kosovo Police Service, the local police force answering to the United Nations protectorate administration. Some of the businessman’s security guards are suspects in the shooting of a KPS officer on August 30, police said.

Political rivalries among ethnic Albanian political parties have also been marked by low-level (?) violence. A year ago, a series of small blasts destroyed cars belonging to rival Kosovo Albanian political factions.

Monday’s blast could raise fears of violence ahead of Kosovo’s upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for November 17.Top-level officials from Pristina and Belgrade are to meet in New York later this week without any diplomatic breakthrough in sight.

The prospect of wider unrest among the frustrated majority population, meanwhile, adds to the pressure at international levels to allow Kosovo to become independent without much further delay.

Ethnic Albanian former guerilla commanders, who are now prominent in party politics, say they were promised an independent state when Nato sent warplanes to their assistance and forced Serb forces to withdraw eight years ago.

More than 10,000 .eu domain names suspended

10.09.2007 - 17:40 CET | By Helena Spongenberg
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The European internet domain name authority, EURid, has suspended around 10,000 .eu domain names registered by a single owner, saying it has doubts over the owner's eligibility as an EU resident – a status required to be able to register a .eu domain name.Brussels-based EUrid took legal action against the owner, a Chinese woman, on Friday (7 September) and then suspended all the .eu domains registered in her name until a court decision has been made. According to an EU regulation from 2002, only persons living in the EU or a company with an office inside the EU can register for a .eu domain name.

The case is expected to last for about a year, but the owner in question has already responded by asking the courts to force EURid to lift the block on her names, according to Herman Sobrie from EUrid.He explained that the woman had registered mainly generic names and numbers. "nobody is registering thousands of names just to have them, of course, so something else is going on there," Mr Sobrie told EUobserver.He said the woman was cyber squatting – the term describing the fraudulent use of domain names for reselling at very high prices.

However, that is not illegal in itself and EUrid is therefore suing her on the "eligibility" of her being an EU resident – something Mr Sobrie said he seriously doubts.
Last year, EURid - a private European non-profit group responsible for the .eu registration - suspended 74,000 .eu domain names and took legal action against 400 registrars for registering the names with a view to re-selling them, in breach of the terms and conditions of the .eu domain name.

© 2007 EUobserver,

Sarkozy and Merkel in competition plea

By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin and Ben Hall in Paris

Published: September 10 2007 19:33 | Last updated: September 10 2007 19:33

France and Germany called on Europe on Monday to take a more aggressive stance against foreign governments whose policies undermine the competitive position of European business.

The initiative, which also reiterated Franco-German calls for more transparency on international financial markets, underlines the growing unease in both countries at mounting competition from such highly centralised economies as Russia and China.

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking in Berlin, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said they would urge their European Union partners to develop a joint “foreign economic policy” at the next informal meeting of EU heads of governments in October.

In a declaration published after one of their six-weekly meetings, the two leaders said such a policy would buttress the EU’s Lisbon strategy on improving the bloc’s competitiveness.

While reaffirming their belief in open markets as “the guarantor” of prosperity, they expressed concern that the use of non-tariff barriers and restrictions to investments and the political manipulation of exchange rates had reached a “preoccupying scale”.

The “use of public funds”, whether through direct subsidies or managed exchange rates, to distort competition in favour of a nation’s companies was a particular problem, they said.

Ensuring equal access to the world’s energy resources and preventing the theft of intellectual property were among the goals of a future EU economic foreign policy.

“This is about reciprocity,” Ms Merkel told a press conference. “We are for open markets but they should be open everywhere.”

There is mounting concern in Germany and France that thanks to state intervention European companies are not getting the same access to fast-growing markets as their rivals enjoy in Europe.

Popular suspicion of globalisation is high in both countries and has recent gained new momentum because of the turbulence on financial markets. Mr Sarkozy has in the past suggested that China used an undervalued renminbi to extract a competitive advantage. He has also voiced doubts about the motives of state-owned investment vehicles from Russia, the Middle East and China.

Paris wants the EU to be more assertive in ensuring equal access to markets, particularly in regard to public procurement.

The two leaders said their finance ministers would push for more transparency on financial markets at the EU meeting. Ms Merkel said the failure of rating agencies to measure the risks in US property debt should be scrutinised. “How can we tall people at home that nobody knew anything about this and yet they all have to live with the consequences?”

Mr Sarkozy had harsh words about “financial speculators” who “can not be allowed to destroy an entire international system. We want a capitalism for entrepreneurs, not speculators.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Ex-German chancellor warns EU on Russia summit

10.09.2007 - 09:26 CET | By Philippa RunnerEUobserver.com
German ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has urged EU powers to stop backing Poland on trade and to counter US missile shield plans, or risk another unfriendly summit with Russia next month.

Speaking to press at a book-launch in Moscow on Saturday (8 September), he described Poland's outstanding veto on a new EU-Russia treaty as "narrow-minded nationalism" and called the US missile scheme "politically dangerous."

"For the good of Europe it's sometimes necessary to forget about the interests of individual [member] states," he said. Poland imposed the veto in late 2006 in reaction to a Russian ban on Polish meat exports.

"It is Germany's responsibility...to persuade the United States to abandon these plans," he added, on Washington's push to build two rocket and radar bases in Poland and the Czech republic by 2012.

Russian first deputy prime minister Dmitry Medvedev - also attending the book-launch - echoed the statement, saying it addresses "real worries" that Germany is no longer a "bridge" in east-west relations.

Mr Schroeder led Germany from 1998 to 2005, becoming a personal friend of Russian president Vladimir Putin and later taking a job in the Kremlin's giant energy corporation, Gazprom.

Shepherds Defend Ancient Grazing Rights

By HAROLD HECKLE Associated Press Writer

Sep 9th, 2007 | MADRID, Spain -- Shepherds from across the world joined their Spanish colleagues to lead flocks of sheep through the streets of downtown Madrid on Sunday in defense of ancient grazing routes threatened by urban sprawl and manmade frontiers.

While every year Spanish herdsmen protest the loss of the routes by herding hundreds of sheep along the capital's exclusive, tree-lined boulevards and luxury store-filled avenues, this year they were joined by colorfully attired shepherds from 32 countries who had been taking part in a world gathering of nomad and transhumance shepherds.

Transhumance is the practice of seasonal livestock movement. In Spain, it involves a million animals _ sheep, cattle and others.

The Spanish protest, now in its 15th year, seeks to highlight a tradition that has for centuries allowed herdsmen the right to use 78,000 miles of Spanish paths in seasonal livestock migrations from cool highland pastures in summer to warmer low-lying spaces in winter. Some paths have been used annually for more than 800 years.

Modern-day Madrid lies squarely in the way of two venerable north-south routes, one dating back to 1372.A relatively modern city by European standards, Madrid inherited its status as capital of Spain's empire only when King Philip II fixed his court here in 1561.As a result, the Puerta del Sol _ a thronging plaza that is the Madrid equivalent of New York's Times Square or London's Piccadilly Circus, now lies in the way of one of these routes.

While the routes are protected by Spanish law, modern life including housing developments, highways and railways have eroded time-honored paths.

Around the world, grazing rights are increasingly endangered by modern development, officials said."It's a contradiction to think that in a world that is increasingly globalized nomad shepherds can't wander freely with their flocks due to political difficulties stemming from frontier crossings," said Benigno Varillas, spokesman for the world shepherd gathering.

Book exposes the intrigue behind EU facades

05.09.2007 - 17:33 CET | By Honor Mahony
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - It sits in the heart of the EU capital with around 23,000 employees from all 27 member states and makes laws that affect almost all aspects of our lives, yet it is rare to get an inside view on what goes on behind the sparkling glass facades of the European Commission.

But now one of its own 'mandarins' has written an exposé of life as a eurocrat. Derk-Jan Eppink, a Dutch national who worked in the commission for seven years, has written a 400-page book casting a not too flattering light on the machinations of the commission and its most powerful officials.

Deeming them "footsoldiers in the battle for integration", Mr Eppink portrays high-ranked eurocrats as being in constant battle between themselves for one upmanship and in battle with their commissioners to make sure they do not stray from the official message - also known as The Line to Take (LTT).

Wayward commissioners who think for themselves are portrayed as the typical mandarin's worst nightmare. So Mr Eppink's 'own' commissioner at the time, the Dutch Frits Bolkestein, was a problem, being outspoken on several issues - whether they belonged to his own internal market dossier or not.

A bored commissioner is a dangerous commissioner…
Mr Eppink reports on one time when Bolkestein definitely did not use the LTT. It was a weekend. On Monday the head of cabinet came in looking like someone had died. The problem:

"This weekend the commissioner criticised the Dutch prime minister, the French president and the President of the Commission. It's us against the rest of the world."

According to Mr Eppink, the head of Mr Bolkestein's cabinet liked to keep his commissioner's agenda full as "A commissioner with nothing to do might have time to start thinking for himself."

A former journalist, Mr Eppink has a sharp eye for the minefield of petty officialdom. He sketches life inside the commission as a constant struggle between the cabinet - essentially there to politically guide the commissioner - and the directorate general who is supposed to draw up legislative proposals.

Both sides want to be a little more involved in the other's territory but are not prepared to give an inch. A much-favoured trick by directorate generals fearing commissioners will be become too involved in a proposal and perhaps unravel their work is to prepare dossiers so complicated, detailed and long that commissioners have little choice but to sign them off - often not knowing what's in them.

In one incident, former commission chief Romano Prodi is left sitting waiting in an adjoining room while his chef de cabinet put the finishing touches on an important decision.

The greatest power of the European mandarins, suggests Mr Eppink, is to turn controversial issues into so-called 'A points' for the commissioners' weekly meeting. This means pre-cooking proposals and thrashing them out before presenting an agreed outline to their political masters, to be passed without discussion.

This is how the services directive proposal – a piece of EU legislation that turned into a monster of controversy once it was examined and discussed thoroughly – was initially just nodded through by commissioners.

While all directorate generals vie to get their particular unit's philosophy through, it is the head of legal service (as far as memory goes back always a Frenchman) who can kill a proposal dead on a legal nicety and the president's head of cabinet who is thought to wield the most power in the commission - or 'Princess' as Mr Eppink insists on calling the EU executive.

Officials making laws
But he also draws attention to the sheer power of unelected eurocrats, who can and do make use of several short cuts to get legislation through - effectively carrying out policy through bureaucratic channels.

"A mandarin might use a written procedure to introduce VAT into a previously exempt sector. If nobody objects, the proposal becomes draft law."

The best tactic is to introduce a series of written procedures before the summer when nobody is around to block them.

While a mandarin fears the press as an unpredictable tool, it can also be mighty useful for killing off proposals or as a forum for early leaks to get a favourable preview of a proposal in a newspaper.

The Financial Times is the favoured paper for the latter. Otherwise it depends on the proposal.

For example, a DG environment proposal on pollution caused by buses would die a death in the French papers if headlined that the commission wants to privatise the public bus service, or in the British papers if headlined that the commission wants to abolish all double-decker buses.

Into this mix of backstabbing and power comes the additional spice of all the different nationalities.

Italians are summed up as "shrewd, devious negotiators", the Dutch and the Germans rely too much on arguments and think that is enough; the French use logic, often coinciding with French national interests, while Spanish and Poles are the most difficult negotiators – being proud and prickly. Belgians are dismissed as ideal mandarins with "legendary" adaptability, and a "lack of backbone."

Out of touch
Introducing the book, he suggests that his time at the commission means he mastered the "intrigue, trickery and deceit" needed to survive as an official in the commission.

Yet Mr Eppink is not dismissive of his former colleagues' ability. He also does not suggest that they are a malign force deliberately out to drown EU citizens through their laws. But he does say they are out of touch with reality.

They push ahead, pruning and working on the EU ideal, but have failed to consider the unpredictable electorate.

"My problem with European Federalists is not their faith, or their aspirations, or even their ideals: it is their lack of political insight," he writes.

He believes the European Constitution – rejected by French and Dutch voters on 2005 – is a good example of EU officials' lack of foresight and understanding.

The book is set to be widely read in Brussels which thrives on political gossip and intrigue inspired by the EU - but it is also likely to be open to the charge that the same sort of in-fighting and pettiness exists in national administrations, which are considerably bigger.

Mr Eppink himself points out that Amsterdam city's administration alone has the same number of officials as the 'Princess.'

Nevertheless, it is good to see the commission, which Mr Eppink describes as being fiercely intolerant of "dissidents" or people on the inside being critical, being sent up somewhat.

A little light and humour where previously there was none can only be a good thing. And perhaps bring it closer to the fabled 'EU citizen'?

Life of a European Mandarin (Lannoo), by Derk-Jan Eppink, can be purchased at EUbookshop.com

France considers ways to tackle globalisation

06.09.2007 - 09:27 CET | By Elitsa Vucheva
France should work for a "much more offensive policy of protection, solidarity and regulation" at an EU level in order to better face globalisation, according to a report by former French foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine.

It should also have the right to protect key or "strategic" sectors of its economy, Mr Vedrine writes in the 63-page document.

"I see globalisation neither as a chance, nor as blight, simply as a fact to which one has to adapt", the former minister is quoted as saying by Le Figaro.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy in July asked Mr Vedrine to draft a report on how the country should respond to the challenges of globalisation.

The report comes at a time when the European Commission is trying to promote more openness and a positive view of globalisation, as well as less national champions.

Containing Russia: Back to the Future?

by Serguei V. Lavrov, Russian Foreign Affairs Minister

http://www.voltairenet.org/article150303.html

Despite modern Russia being an open State, well integrated onto the world stage, atlantists insist in considering it as the former Soviet Union and try to isolate it. Following this logic, Washington is proceeding with the enlargement of NATO in spite of its own commitments, and undertaking the deployment of new missile systems in Europe. In this article, drafted specially for Foreign Affairs magazine but later rejected by its editorial board, Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov calls on United Staters to renounce the Cold War renewal and suggests finding new regulation mechanisms within a USA-Russia-EU tripolar world. Here is the full, uncensored paper.

25 July 2007

From
Moscow (Russia)

Themes

New Cold War: the Anti-Russian Strategy

Influential political forces on both sides of the Atlantic appear intent on starting a debate about whether or not to "contain" Russia. The mere posing of the question suggests that for some almost nothing has changed since the Cold War.

What is a return to containment meant to achieve at a time when Russia has abandoned ideology and imperial aspirations in favor of pragmatism and common sense? What is the purpose of containing a country that is successfully developing and thereby naturally strengthening its international position? What is the point of containing a country that aspires to things as basic as international trade?

It should be no surprise that Russia today is making use of its natural competitive advantages. It is also investing in its human resources, encouraging innovation, integrating into the global economy, and modernizing its legislation. Russia wants international stability to underpin its own development. Accordingly, it is working toward the establishment of a freer and more democratic international order.

The new advocacy of containment may stem from a substantial gap between Russian and U.S. aspirations. U.S. diplomacy seeks to transform what Washington considers "nondemocratic" govern-ments around the world, reordering entire regions in the process. Russia, with its experience with revolution and extremism, cannot subscribe to any such ideologically driven project, especially one that comes from abroad. The Cold War represented a step away from the Westphalian standard of state sovereignty, which placed values beyond the scope of intergovernmental relations. A return to Cold War theories such as containment will only lead to confrontation.

In contrast to the Soviet Union, Russia is an open country that does not erect walls, either physical or political. On the contrary, Russia calls for the removal of visa barriers and other artificial hurdles in international relations. It espouses democracy and market economics as the right bases for social and political order and economic life.

Although Russia has a long way to go, it has chosen a path of development that entails unprecedented, and at times painful, changes. Russian society has reached a broad consensus that these changes should be evolutionary and free of upheavals. Ultimately, a mature democracy, with a vibrant civil society and a well-structured party system, will emerge from a higher level of social and economic development. This requires a substantial middle class, which cannot come into being overnight. It was only Russian tycoons who emerged overnight in the early 1990s – and those times are definitely over.
Frictional Energy

Countries dependent on external sources of energy criticize Russia for assuming its naturally large role in the global energy sector. However, those countries should recognize that energy dependence is reciprocal, since hoarding is not a wise choice for an energy exporting country. That is why Russia has never failed to fulfill any of its hydrocarbon-supply contracts with importing countries. Russia does, however, consider energy to be a strategic sector that helps safeguard independence in its foreign relations. This is understandable given the negative external reactions to Russia’s strengthened economy and enlarged role in international affairs, in which Russia lawfully employs its newly gained freedom of action and speech. It should not be criticized by those who frown on a stronger Russia.

The Russian government’s energy policy reflects a global trend toward state control over natural resources. Ninety percent of the world’s proven hydrocarbon reserves are under some form of state control. Such state control of energy resources is offset, however, by the concentration of cutting-edge technology in the hands of private transnational corporations. Thus, there are incentives for cooperation between the parties, with each sharing the same objective of meeting the energy requirements of the world economy.

Russia is pursuing a foreign policy in striking contrast to the ideologically motivated internationalism of the Soviet Union. Today, Russia believes that multilateral diplomacy based on international law should manage regional and global relations. As globalization has extended beyond the West, competition has become truly global – nothing less than a paradigm shift. Competing states must now take into account differing values and development patterns. The challenge is to establish fairness in this complex competitive environment.

The logical approach is for countries to focus on their competitive advantages without imposing their values on others. U.S. attempts to do the latter have weakened the West’s competitive position. As Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Policy, has put it, U.S. policies in recent years have "damaged tremendously the image of the West" in Asia and Africa. He concludes that nothing, or almost nothing, has been done to make Western values attractive to Asian and African populations. Russia can hardly be held responsible for that.

In his speech in Munich earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated the obvious when he said that a "unipolar world" had failed to materialize. Recent experience shows as clearly as ever that no state or group of states possesses sufficient resources to impose its will on the world. Hierarchy might seem attractive to some in global affairs, but it is utterly unrealistic. It is one thing to respect American culture and civilization; it is another to embrace Americo-centrism.

The new international system has not one but several leading actors, and their collective leadership is needed to manage global relations. This multipolarity encourages network diplomacy as the best way for states to achieve shared objectives. In this system, the United Nations becomes pivotal, providing through its charter the means for collective discussion and action.
The Limits Of Force

In the twenty-first century, delay in solving accumulated problems carries devastating consequences for all nations. One sure lesson is that unilateral responses, consisting primarily of using force, result in stalemates and broken china everywhere. The current catalog of unresolved crises – Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Darfur, North Korea – is a testament to that. Genuine security will only be achieved through establishing normal relations and engaging in dialogue. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier hit the right note when he counseled that today’s world should be based on cooperation rather than military deterrence.

Complex problems require comprehensive approaches. In the case of Iran, resolving differences should lie in the normalization by all countries of their relations with Tehran. Normalization would also help preserve the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Regarding Kosovo, independence from Serbia would create a precedent that goes beyond the existing norms of international law. Our partners’ inclination to give way to the blackmail of violence and anarchy within Kosovo contrasts with the indifference shown to similar violence and anarchy in the Palestinian territories, where it has been tolerated for decades while a Palestinian state has yet to be established.

Eliminating the Cold War legacy in Europe, where the containment policy was dominant for too long, is especially pressing. Creating division in Europe encourages nationalist sentiments that threaten the unity of the continent. The current problems faced by the European Union, in particular, and European politics, in general, cannot be solved without Europe’s maintaining constructive and future-oriented relations with Russia – relations based on mutual trust and confidence. This ought to be seen as serving U.S. interests as well.

Instead, various attempts are being made to contain Russia, including through the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in violation of previous assurances given to Moscow. Today, supporters of NATO enlargement harp on the organization’s supposed role in the promotion of democracy. How is democracy furthered by a military-political alliance that is producing scenarios for the use of force?

Meanwhile, some are promoting the extension of NATO membership to the countries that comprise the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as some sort of pass providing admittance to the club of democratic states whether these countries meet the democratic test or not. One cannot help wondering whether this initiative is being pursued for the sake of moral satisfaction or again to contain Russia.

As far as the CIS is concerned, Russia has the capacity to maintain social, economic, and other forms of stability in the region. Moscow’s rejection of politicized trade and economic relations and its adoption of market-based principles testifies to its determination to have normalcy in interstate relations. Russia and the West can cooperate in this region but only by forsaking zero-sum power games.

The drive to place missile defenses in eastern Europe is evidence of the U.S. effort to contain Russia. It is hardly coincidental that this installation would fit into the U.S. global missile defense system that is deployed along Russia’s perimeter. Many Europeans are rightfully concerned that stationing elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe would undermine disarmament processes. For its part, Russia considers the initiative a strategic challenge that requires a strategic response.

President Putin’s offer to allow joint usage of the Gabala radar base in Azerbaijan, instead of those eastern European installations – as well as his proposal, made when meeting with President George W.Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine, in July, to create a regional monitoring and early warning system – provides a brilliant opportunity to find a way out of the present situation with the dignity of all parties intact. As a starting point for a truly collective effort in this area, Russia is willing to take part, together with the United States and others, in a joint analysis of potential missile threats up to the year 2020.

The desire to contain Russia clearly manifests itself as well in the situation surrounding the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (or CFE Treaty). Russia complies with the treaty in good faith and insists only on the one thing that the treaty promises: equal security. However, the equal security principle was compromised with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact; meanwhile, NATO was left intact and then enlarged. In the meantime, attempts to correct the situation have come up against the refusal of NATO member countries to ratify the modernization of the treaty under various unrelated pretexts that have no legal justification and are entirely political. The lesson to be drawn from the CFE Treaty stalemate is that any element of global or European security architecture that is not based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit will not prove to be sustainable. After all, if we cannot adapt this old instrument to the new realities, is it not time to review the situation and start developing a new system of arms control and confidence-building measures, if we find that Europe needs one? Here again, frank discussion at Kennebunkport gave hope that there is way to move toward putting into force the adapted treaty.
Beyond The Cold War

It is time to bury the Cold War legacy and establish structures that meet the imperatives of this era – particularly since Russia and the West are no longer adversaries and do not wish to create the impression that war is still a possibility in Europe. The path to trust lies through candid dialogue and reasoned debate, as well as interactions based on the joint analysis of threats. At the moment, however, without reasonable grounds, Russia is excluded from such joint analysis. Instead, it is urged to believe in the analytic abilities and good intentions of its partners.

Russians do not suffer from a sense of exceptionalism, but neither do they consider their analytic abilities and ideas inferior to those of others. Russia will respond to safeguard its national security, and in doing so will be guided by the principle of "reasonable sufficiency." Meanwhile, it will always keep the door open for positive joint action to safeguard common interests on the basis of equality. This is the only serious approach to national security concerns.

In his speech in Munich, President Putin invited all of Russia’s partners to start a serious and substantive discussion of the current status of international affairs, which is far from satisfactory. Russia is convinced that a friend/enemy attitude toward it should be a thing of the past. If efforts are being undertaken to "counter Russia’s negative behavior," how can Russia be expected to cooperate in areas of interest to its partners? One has to choose between containment and cooperation. This is relevant to Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization and the Asian Development Bank and to the unwarranted continuance of the 1970s Jackson-Vanik amendment, which denies Russia permanent normal trading relations with the United States.

U.S.-Russian relations still enjoy the stabilizing benefits of a close and honest working relationship between President Putin and President Bush. Both countries and both peoples share the memory of their joint victory over fascism and their joint exit from the Cold War, which unites them in its own right. Should equal partnership prevail in U.S.-Russian relations, very little will be impossible for the two nations to achieve. The challenges are many – the struggle against international terrorism; organized crime and drug trafficking; the search for realistic climate protection; the development of nuclear energy while strengthening nonproliferation efforts; the pursuit of global energy security; and the exploration of outer space. Practical cooperation on these and other challenges should not be sacrificed on the altar of renewed containment.

At present, anti-Americanism is not as widespread in Russia as it is elsewhere. But a return to containment, and the bloc-based thinking that accompanies it, could trigger mutual alienation between Americans and Russians. The strains evident in the U.S.-Russian relationship call for a high-level working group charged with finding ways to further cooperation. The presidents of Russia and the United States support the idea of such a group, headed by the former statesmen Henry Kissinger and Yevgeny Primakov.

Both sides should demonstrate a broad-minded and unbiased vision, one that represents Russia and the United States as two branches of European civilization. Russia, the United States, and the European Union should work together to preserve the integrity of the Euro-Atlantic space in global politics. For as Jacques Delors has said, whenever this troika "is divided by differences, whenever each party plays its own game, the risk of global instability greatly increases."

So why not stand together and act in the spirit of cooperation and fair competition on the basis of shared standards and a respect for international law? At the Kennebunkport meeting in July, President Putin and President Bush demonstrated what teamwork can achieve. They agreed to look for common approaches to missile defense and strategic arms reductions, and they launched new initiatives on nuclear energy and nonproliferation. Russia and the United States have nothing to divide them; along with other partners, they share responsibility for the future of the world. It is not Russia that needs to be contained; it is those who would deprive the world of the benefits that will come from a strong U.S.-Russian partnership.
    
Serguei V. Lavrov

Sergey V. Lavrov is Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.

US Missile Shield unpopular in Eastern Europe

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 06:22:19 +0100
From: Rowan Berkeley <rowan.berkeley@googlemail.com>
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY, PRAVDA.Ru, 30.08.2007
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/30-08-2007/96540-usmissileshield-0

Another case of military neo-colonialism, the backbone of Washington’s foreign policy, backfires and blows up in the Bush regime’s face – the majority of Czechs and Poles do not want the USA’s missile defence shield on their territory because it will bring their international reputation down to US levels. Environmentalists alerted over special protected site in Czech Republic.

Protests in the Czech Republic, a damning opinion poll in Poland, fruit of the neo-colonialist, neo-imperialistic, gung-ho, arrogant, chauvinistic foreign policy of the Bush regime, wholly owned and controlled by the clique of neo-fascist sycophantic corporate elitists which gravitate around the White House, holding its policies and the American people in a vice-tight grip as it uses their money and abuses their trust.

Protected natural area

In the Czech Republic, a protest march held this weekend joined together hundreds of angry demonstrators, who marched to the site where the US radar system is to be installed, namely in a protected natural area at Brdy. Josef Hala, one of the organizers of the No to Bases group, stated that “This is not a matter of politics...We want the people who have never been there to see it. There is wonderful nature there, they should understand why we protect the area”.

The opposition Social Democratic Party is against the installation of the radar system on Czech soil, a position shared by the majority of the Czech population, according to opinion polls.

Poland against interceptor missiles

The percentage of Poles against the deployment of US interceptor missiles on Polish territory has risen from 55 to 56 per cent, according to the latest survey carried out by CBOS polling centre in Warsaw. Only 28 per cent of those polled favour the plan.

70 per cent of the poll stated that the Polish Government had not done enough to inform the people of the plans, 34 per cent claim the shield will damage Poland’s international reputation and 32 per cent claim it would weaken Poland’s standing within the European Union.

It is clear that the Bush regime’s foreign policy is antagonistic to the hearts and minds of the international community. No regime in the history of mankind has done more damage to international law, international institutions, including the UNO, no Government in Washington has done more damage to the standing, reputation and legacy of the United States of America or the North American people.

It is not without reason that Latin Americans are refusing to be called simply “Americans” and request the use of the adjective North Americans because they are ashamed of being associated with their neighbours to the north, due to the murderous criminal activities of the Bush regime and its cowering clique of sycophants abroad.
Russian Foreign Minister calls for end of “new Cold War”, but Foreign Affairs magazine censors his article

Ministers back plans to grow genetically modified crops in Britain

Last updated at 17:55pm on 17th September 2007 Several government ministers are throwing their weight behind a campaign to get genetically modified crops back on the public agenda, it has been reported. Some senior ministers now believe the public is ready to embrace the controversial technology, which will enable crops to produce a higher yield and be used for bio-fuel. It is believed they are liaising with key agricultural supporters of GM to push the government into launching a national debate on the issue to highlight the benefits.

One government source said: "GM will come back to the UK, the question is how it comes back, not whether it's coming back." Attempts to introduce GM to Britain in the late 1990s met a wave of hostility from varied sources. Activists took direct action tearing up crops while supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer barred GM ingredients from their products for fear of sparking a consumer backlash. In 2004, the government announced that no GM crops would be grown in the country for the 'foreseeable future' sparking Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, to declare, "This is the end of GM in Britain".

Currently, only one UK company - the plant science company BASF - is trialing GM crops, in this case a blight-resistant potato in tests in Cambridge and Yorkshire.

The Government claims that it still considers applications by companies to grow GM crops on a 'case by case basis'. But at the moment, it is not believed that any other UK companies are applying for licences to grow GM crops.

Recent polls also revealed that about 70 per cent of the European public is opposed to GM foods. But despite this, several ministers and key agricultural figures now believe the time is right to get the issue back on the agenda. Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said: "We have absolutely every confidence that GM will be used in the UK."

Last night, a Defra spokeswoman insisted the Government's position had not changed.

She said: "GM technology is not wholly good or bad and the only sensible approach is to consider GM crops on a case-by-case basis." "Each proposed crop will go through a detailed risk assessment that involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists - not only here but throughout the EU." "We do not expect any commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK before 2009 at the very earliest." "And before any GM crops are grown here commercially we will introduce measures to ensure they can coexist with non-GM crops." "Ultimately it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM products. If there is no market for them GM crops will not be grown."

UK set for oil land grab off Falklands

The claims, which are set to be lodged at the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, exploit a novel legal approach that is transforming the international politics of underwater prospecting.

Britain is accelerating its process of submitting applications to the UN - which is fraught with diplomatic sensitivities, not least with Argentina - before an international deadline for registering interests. Similar claims are being made for seabed off Rockall, a rock outcrop west of Scotland.

Relying on detailed geological and geophysical surveys, any state can delineate a new "continental shelf outer limit" that can extend up to 350 miles from its shoreline.

Data has been collected for most of Britain's submissions and Chris Carleton, head of the law of the sea division at the UK Hydrographic Office, said preliminary talks on Rockall, which is 300 miles west of Scotland, are being held in Iceland this week. But he believes the Falklands claim has the most potential for acrimonious political fallout.

Britain and Argentina fought over the islands 25 years ago, and the value of the oil under the sea in the region is understood to be immense.

Carleton, who is involved in preparing the submission, said the claim "effectively joins up the area around South Georgia to the Falklands".

Martin Pratt, of Durham University's international boundaries research unit, added: "The Russians may be claiming the Arctic but the UK is claiming a large chunk of the Atlantic."

This article: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1520532007

Last updated: 22-Sep-07 00:04 BST