European Union on The Huffington Post

Paul McCartney Takes Meatless Monday To EU

2009-12-03T10:56:49Z

BRUSSELS — Paul McCartney took his "Meat-Free Mondays" campaign to the European Parliament on Thursday, saying the power to halt global warming lies as much with individuals as with their governments.

McCartney met in Brussels with Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s global climate change panel, and praised the virtue of skipping meat one day a week for the sake of the environment.

EU Draft Document On Division Of Jerusalem

2009-12-01T11:46:21Z

The current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, Sweden, has put together a draft document calling for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and a future Palestinian state and implying that the EU would recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.

Haaretz has obtained a copy of the document that has sparked criticism by Israel, which claims that such a move would further harm the chances of renewing the Mideast peace process.

Greece: Debt Leads To Worries Of "New Iceland" Situation

2009-12-01T09:25:51Z

The likelihood of Greece becoming the next Iceland and plunging into bankruptcy looms over a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels today as the Greeks prepare to take another pasting from their colleagues.

William Bradley: Tony Blair's Cautionary Tale For Obama

2009-11-24T11:58:47Z

Tony Blair's recent travails, last week over his bid to become the first president of the European Union and today with the start of Britain's Iraq War inquiry, stand as something of a cautionary tale for President Barack Obama. Blair was long the favorite to become the first president of the European Union. But in the end, pilloried on the left for his leading role in the Iraq War and still not supported by the right, he was supplanted by a little-known Belgian bureaucrat.

Just as America had Obamamania in 2008, Britain had Blairmania in 1997. "Things Can Only Get Better" blared, as it were, the ubiquitous Blair campaign song.

Tony Blair's farewell speech.

"Everybody voted for him. He wasn't a politician; he was a craze." That's how the title character puts it in the deliciously vicious roman a clef novel by former Blair friend Robert Harris, The Ghost (as in ghostwriter of the ex-prime minister's memoirs), which was was being made into a movie by Roman Polanski when he was arrested in Switzerland.

Blair ushered in an era of "Cool Britannia," which many critics say morphed into Cruel Britannia as he swapped his famous friendship with Bill Clinton for an infamous friendship with George W. Bush.

As Britain's Opposition Leader in 1994, Blair, along with Clinton, swiftly emerged as a chief advocate of the the global "Third Way," between the sclerotic sort of socialism which made Labour a consistent loser in Britain and a hyper-capitalism which hollowed out communities. With Blair, Labour became New Labour, a remade force able to take on the reigning Conservatives. Well, more than able to take on the Tories. Able to shatter them, actually, which Blair proceeded to do.

"Things Can Only Get Better," the ubiquitous campaign song of Tony Blair and New Labour.

Blair reinvented a moribund political party, won three national elections (the only Labour politician to do so) beginning with his landslide win in 1997 -- the largest in 165 years -- and quickly became a very major world figure.

Under Blair, Britain "modernised" as "Cool Britannia," and indicators on the economy, the environment, and crime improved for his decade-plus as British prime minister. He made Britain a more inclusive society. And he settled the bloody, decades long conflict in Northern Ireland. Blair and Clinton formed a strong working partnership as Blair became a global player.

Fatefully, Blair became quite the interventionist abroad. He took Britain to war, in one form or another, five times. First when he and Clinton decided to conduct an air war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq when the Iraqi dictator proved intransigent on weapons inspections and other matters. Next when, at Blair's determined instigation, NATO launched an air war to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and bring down the Serbian dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. Then Blair intervened in the African nation of Sierra Leone, with British forces landing to end a brutal civil war.

Then came 9/11, and Blair, who had formed an unlikely friendship with George W. Bush, was quick to spring to America's side. British resources, notably intelligence, and forces, including its crack special ops forces, were instrumental in helping America overthrow the Taliban's theocratic dictatorship in Afghanistan and rout Al Qaeda from its redoubt.

Bush and Blair address the people of Iraq as the invasion begins.

Then came Iraq. The war far too far, to borrow a phrase and change it a bit. By 2002, it was apparent that Tony Blair had developed a taste for intervention and for turning out dictators, as well as a commitment to his alliance with the US in the 9/11-derived war on terror. Iraq was next on the agenda of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the coterie of neoconservative theorists around them, as it had been all along. Initially skeptical about an Iraq invasion, Blair was caught up in the move. Blair and his people believed that he had major influence over Bush, having banked a great deal of credit with the Afghanistan operation, intel/special ops moves around the world, and world diplomacy in the UN and elsewhere. It turned out that, despite all that and their personal friendship, he did not.

Saddam Hussein was unpopular in much of the Arab world and was a largely secular dictator who was actually oppressing much of his population, especially the Shia. But the Bush/Cheney team, as we've seen, closely associated with various charlatans in the Iraqi exile community and elsewhere, had a totally unrealistic view of how Iraq might be secured and governed in the aftermath of victory in a conventional war. Blair wanted a strong UN role in the governance of Iraq, but Cheney and his allies worked assiduously to undermine Blair's influence with Bush on that and other matters. Such as engagement with Iran and Syria, which Blair has always advocated. To the hardline neoconservatives, Blair, actually a man of the center-left, was a socialist who did not share their view of a civilizational war, and that was that.

A BBC retrospective on Blair.

The other big problem was how to sell an Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, but that hardly made him unique in the world. His links with Al Qaeda were slight, and there was no serious evidence linking him to the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York, despite what Dick Cheney and the neocons said. You couldn't actually say that we were invading Iraq for its oil. Which, of course, never did pay for the occupation, a later claim of Donald Rumsfeld's. That left WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

Which Saddam Hussein, for all his understandable bluster, didn't really have. He maintained the facade of having them -- consistently blocking weapons inspections -- to maintain fear and order within and to seem more powerful to other countries. Incidentally, merely because an irritating country says it can do things doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. Otherwise, we would believe that North Korea was about to take over the world. It's the job of intelligence services and their decision-making masters in government to determine what is bullshit and act accordingly.

But Bush and Cheney pushed the myth of Iraqi WMD, and its supposedly imminent threat. Because it served their nitwit purpose to do so. Blair lent his credibility to this nonsense and took Britain to war. A war which, as we saw at the Azores Summit prior to the invasion, Blair was far better at explaining and selling than was the falteringly inarticulate Bush.

A war which played right into Al Qaeda's hands, which wanted the West tied down in military operations in the middle of the Islamic world, both to drain America's resources and to inflame a new generation of jihadists. A war which provided Iran with the opening to become the great power of the region, an ambition which has not yet come to fruition.

A war which hamstrung Tony Blair, festooning his once glittering reputation with streamers of screaming charges of "B.Liar," that he not only used his very considerable powers of persuasion to help sell an unsellable war but also facilitated the torture of British citizens at the hands of CIA and Pakistani interrogators.

The Ghost teaser trailer.

Could something like this happen to Barack Obama? Could he pin America down in another faraway quagmire, going far beyond what is needed to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become the base for "The Base," Al Qaeda? Could he see his shining stand against torture slide into a de facto policy of torture?

Blair, who never officially announced his candidacy for the European presidency, made several late moves to try to find his way through the complex thicket of European politics, with calls to various leaders and a speech in Switzerland where he appealed to the continent's dominant center-right faction by warning against too much governmental intervention to overcome the global recession.

But it didn't work. Blair was too big a figure for some of the smaller countries and for some leaders of the larger countries with global aspirations of their own; too controversial for the left and too left for the right. And so the old political dictum that you can't beat somebody with nobody was proved wrong, at least in this instance.

He continues as special Mideast envoy of the Quartet (America, Britain, Russia, and the European Union). But the question of Israel and Palestine continues to be largely intractable. His supposed ally Secretary of State Condi Rice imagined she would negotiate a peace -- at which she clearly failed -- and pushed Blair off to the building up of the Palestinian Authority. Which is only a fraction of the equation. A friend who visited the region last week said that the Israeli and Palestinian leaders she saw barely mentioned Tony Blair.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

The New EU Chiefs: Rompuy-Pumpy And Cathy Who?

2009-11-20T13:20:59Z

LONDON — Catherine Ashton: International woman of mystery.

Ashton is Europe's new foreign policy chief, the international representative of half a billion people, with a euro7 billion ($10.5 billion) budget and a salary of more than $300,000 a year – but in her homeland, it's hard to find many who have heard of her.

The Telegraph Asks Its Readers For 10 Reasons To Dislike The Belgians

2009-11-20T11:20:26Z

Amid growing tensions over the final vote for the EU presidency, the French-language regional newspaper La Capitale offered a list of our most irritating national traits.

EU Leaders Deadlocked Over President Decision

2009-11-19T12:06:43Z

BRUSSELS — After years of effort the European Union named its first full-time president and powerful foreign policy chief on Thursday – but handed the jobs to two little-known compromise figures instead of global heavy hitters.

The choice by national leaders behind closed doors broke a stalemate in choppy, often pained negotiations intended to give Europe a voice on the world stage commensurate with its economic heft. That hope was apparently dashed by a desire for consensus instead of a potentially divisive figure who could have overshadowed leaders of nations such as France and Germany.

The New EU Presidency - Contenders And Odds (PHOTOS, POLL)

2009-11-18T13:46:08Z

This Thursday, the European Council is expected to announce their first-ever elected President.

However, with a baffling selection process taking place firmly behind closed doors, and no clear candidates or actual vote, the European public is struggling to get excited for what may be an important decision.

The role, whilst largely administrative, represents a new era of European integration. It would be the first time the European Union would have a recognizable, elected leader. As Reuters put it:

The post of EU president was created to give Brussels more clout and respect in world affairs. The person was supposed to be instantly recognizable and charismatic to boost dwindling public confidence which hit rock bottom when French and Dutch voters rejected the EU's draft constitution in 2005.

Whilst the European Council currently has a presidential position, this position is technically the head of state of the member that is currently president of the council. These member states rotate every 6 months. Having a separate, elected leader who holds office for two and a half years would, in theory, provide more continuity to pan-European politics and give an identifiable face for the rest of the world.

The problem is, with a region as diverse as Europe, a candidate that can appease all states is unlikely to be found. The Financial Times reports:

A majority of the EU's 27 national leaders are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the bloc's first full-time president might overshadow them - diminishing the status of national governments in the process.

Just who could overcome this deadlock? We look at the favorites - with odds from British bookmakers Ladbrokes - and ask you to vote on who should be chosen.

Please note - odds correct at time of publication Wednesday, but may change. Check Ladbrokes for the latest odds.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Why Europe Feels Rejected By Obama

2009-11-16T16:59:29Z

Why would an American president not come to a celebration marking the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with it, the triumphant end of the Cold War -- one of the high points of the United States' and Europe's common 20th-century history?

Palestinians Seek EU Support For Independent State

2009-11-16T16:18:18Z

RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinians asked the European Union on Monday to back their plan to have the U.N. Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.

The idea of seeking U.N. intervention has been gaining steam in the Arab world as the impasse in peacemaking drags on. The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in 1967.

William Bradley: Obama In Flux

2009-11-13T16:25:20Z

As he embarks on his first big trip to Asia, President Barack Obama's strategies are in flux in many areas.

His first stop, Japan, is acting more independently of America after the long reign of the relatively conservative Liberal Democratic Party.

His next stop, Singapore, host of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, holds a host of trade challenges, as well as a sideline meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Afghanistan is following President Barack Obama to Asia.

The stop after that, China, is the increasingly assertive great power on the cusp of superpower status, locked in a symbiotic economic relationship with America.

His final stop, South Korea, is friendly but embroiled in an endless stand-off with North Korea, another aspiring nuclear power.

It's no surprise that Obama is being followed on his Asian trip by other crises. Because so much in his geopolitics is so fundamentally unresolved, making that Nobel Peace Prize more than a bit premature.

He still doesn't have his newest strategy for Afghanistan. Pakistan is embroiled in its latest offensive against the Taliban.

Obama on Thursday began a week-long trip to Asia, touring a complex region where a newly assertive China and a more independent Japan are challenging America's traditional dominance.

Iran has refused to sign the nuclear agreement its representatives negotiated in Vienna.

The Iranian nuclear situation becomes more convoluted every day. Now the head of the Iranian military has stated that he favors the plan Iran agreed to last month in Vienna, only to stall on ratification, then say no, and then say it wanted to re-negotiate on "details."

There is either a power struggle under way in Tehran or Iran is trying to buy time against harsher sanctions and a possible Israeli attack.

The Obama Administration moved yesterday to seize a New York skyscraper and four mosques around the country -- including one in California, in the sleepy Sacramento suburb of Carmichael -- that it says are secretly controlled by Iran, serving as conduits of cash for the regime.

Then there is the endless question of Israel and Palestine. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set off a firestorm in the Arab world when she said that Israel had done enough on its program of settlements on the West Bank. Which it is continuing. That was walked back by the administration. But there is little progress in this possibly intractable situation, with neither side willing to compromise much.

With regard to Russia, whose president Obama is again about to meet, it may be shifting away from Iran. This may be part of a complex series of political changes in Moscow which sees power apparently flowing away from the siloviki, or core group of security/intel types. Relations with Russia have also been in flux, with kinder words and some better cooperation on Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation, but no clear agreement on Russia's preferred sphere of influence in its "near abroad."

Tony Blair's farewell speech to the British Labour Party conference in 2006, the beginning of his long goodbye tour.

And then there is the matter of Tony Blair. (I know, he's not a country. Though an old friend joked that when he listens to the Beatles' "Sun King" he thinks of Blair.) His bid to be the first president of the European Union is still alive, though heavily opposed. In part because of Iraq, in part because he is in other respects out of step with Europe's mostly center-right leaders, and in part because he is a superstar who would overshadow smaller countries and the aspirational leaders of larger countries.

European leaders will gather in Brussels next Thursday to make the decision. Blair is a longtime American ally, to put it mildly, so his election would be mostly welcomed in Washington.

While almost all of America slept, Obama held summit meetings with new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Hatoyama's party swept the long-ruling LDP from power earlier this year. Amidst promises of a more independent relationship with America. But Hatoyama is no radical. Actually, he is part of the long-ruling elite of his island nation.

His father was the foreign minister in an LDP government. His paternal grandfather was prime minister and head of the LDP. His maternal grandfather was the founder of Bridgestone, one of the world's largest tire companies.

It's likely, in the Japanese way, that he will pursue a moderated course of independence.

And Obama, with his Nobel Peace Prize and global celebrity, is the president to work that through, while retaining America's longtime fundamental interests in the region.

Japan still wants protection from North Korea, and a place under America's nuclear umbrella with regard to China. America still wants bases. Both want favorable trade arrangements and free-flowing capital and technology.

But it's Afghanistan that looms over Obama's shoulder as he makes his way through a series of geopolitical minefields in Asia.

Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country

As Obama works his way toward his newest strategy on Afghanistan, a new Gallup Poll finds the nation split down the middle, with only pluralities for any position.

35% of Americans say he should follow the recommendation of the commanding U.S. general in Afghanistan and increase troop levels by about 40,000. Another 7% support a smaller troop increase, meaning a total of 42% of Americans support a troop increase of some size. However, nearly the same percentage, 44%, would like to see the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan reduced.

With 44% of Americans in the Nov. 5-8 poll favoring a troop reduction and 7% wanting to keep troop levels where they are, a slim majority appears to oppose a troop increase. Last month, using a different question wording, Gallup also found the public largely divided on sending more troops to Afghanistan.

If Obama decides to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, he will be going against the wishes of the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, 60% of Democrats would like the president to begin to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, while 26% support a troop increase of about 40,000 (18%) or less than that number (8%).

On the other hand, the majority of Republicans side with Gen. McChrystal's recommendation and support an increase of about 40,000 U.S. troops, with an additional 6% of Republicans favoring a smaller troop increase.

Independents are evenly divided between favoring a troop increase of any size (36% would like Obama to follow McChrystal's recommended increase and 7% favor a smaller increase) and supporting a reduction in U.S. troops (43%).

This is a pretty slender reed on which to base an escalation.

There is also a big gender gap on Afghanistan.

Men are much more likely than women to favor expanding the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan. A majority of men favor a troop increase (including 45% who believe Obama should follow McChrystal's recommendation) while only 32% of women agree. A majority of women would like to see the U.S. reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan.

Obama took part in the memorial service at Fort Hood and also delivered an address, one of his best, on the enduring nature and value of military service in the changing world of the early 21st century.

In the midst of all that, Obama has wildly diverging advice from his new commander and his new ambassador in Afghanistan, a retired general himself.

Obama apparently now wants additional options beyond those presented by General Stanley McChrystal, US commander in Afghanistan. And an exit plan. As well he might.

The new US ambassador to Afghanistan, retired General Karl Eikenberry, sent several cables late last week to the president opposing an escalation in Afghanistan, saying that President Hamid Karzai is incompetent and corrupt and that a surge will only make Afghanistan more dependent on America.

The only reasonable mission for America in Afghanistan is to ensure that Al Qaeda can no longer use it as a base for its training and operations. That doesn't require the sort of nation-building as counter-insurgency that McChrystal is advocating. Advocating, that is, with no guarantee of success.

That there is so much unsettled doesn't mean that Obama isn't doing his job. It means that it's a complicated world not given to bumper sticker "solutions."

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Jarvis Coffin: EU Has its Finger on the Internet Privacy Button

2009-11-09T08:35:09Z

In case it has escaped anyone's attention, the European Union is dangling the online advertising industry outside a window and threatening to drop it on its head over the issue of privacy (ClickZ, 11-06-09; Ad Age, 11-05-09.)

Incited by bad behavior at Phorm and BT, which evidently collaborated on unannounced ad targeting tests relying on the more detailed user data available through BT's ISP business (not very helpful), the EU is taking legal action against the UK in order to compel it to impose tougher privacy standards. In the meantime, the EU is advancing legislation through its parliament that amounts to an opt-in requirement for all tracking cookies, which are the things that make the world go around for advertisers and publishers online. If the EU succeeds with that legislation the world will end at the English Channel and European web publishers will find it hard to attract the advertising that is important to sustaining their web sites.

That should be a matter of some concern to the EU parliament. Are not the voices of probably hundreds of thousands of European web publishers meaningful to the debate? Not all of those publishers - perhaps very few of them - are in it to make beaucoup amounts of money. But the money doesn't hurt when there are provider bills to pay, and family objections to overcome that result from many hours at the computer composing thoughtful web sites and blogs. An evening or two out for dinner, a new automobile, a school tuition paid, always help to quell dissent among an artist's inner circle of dependents and care-givers.

Never mind the taxes and the votes that go missing when commerce is affected. We recognize this is the EU we're talking about and that taxes and votes might not be the drivers they are in the rest of the Western world. Still, there is the matter of the artistic freedom and the ability of a huge segment of the Internet's publishing fabric to survive that should be considered. What will happen to all those voices? How will Europe be represented in a post-apocalyptic, post-cookie world of its own making? What of our Global Village, which benefits from so many connections online and seems especially relevant to the very notion of a "European Union" in the world?

Online advertising in the U.S. is targeted to the U.S. and it represents most of the advertising in the world. If the EU goes dark online tomorrow many global marketers will be affected, but in those EU places only. North American web publishers will prosper. Global web providers such as Google and Yahoo! will be inconvenienced, but they can choose over the years whether to pass or play in the EU depending on whether they can make a living.

The fastest growing markets in the world are in the east. So far, China is not proposing to choke web publishers in that part of the world with draconian privacy measures. It has different problems, the solutions to which - involving more publishing freedom - work towards a positive future for marketers and publishers. Not so EU policies, which work against the future of publishers.

It may come to pass, therefore, that web publishers in three-quarters of the world will eventually speak for all of it, including the one quarter left out in Europe. Any government's instinct to protect its people is understandable and desirable - including on the matter of Internet privacy - but the EU should carefully consider the extent to which such uncompromising privacy legislation will deprive its constituents of a voice in the New Information era by depriving its enablers, the web publishers, the commercial means to make it heard.

Steve Parker: Shocker! GM Cancels Opel Sale, But Why?

2009-11-05T01:42:38Z

On Monday of this week, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel met with President Obama in Washington and then addressed the US Congress, where she was warmly greeted, and made an impassioned address concerning the environment and global warming.

She was on top of the world when, just minutes later, she heard the news that General Motors had decided call off the sale of their European division headquartered in Germany, Opel.

And GM being GM, the company announced Wednesday that it will cut 10,000 jobs at Opel and their British division, Vauxhall, un-employing about 20% of the company's 50,000 workers.

Opel's GT was one of the first Opel vehicles sold in America; some compared it to a "mini-Corvette"

And boy, is Merkel pissed. She might not be making more warm and fuzzy speeches to Congress anytime soon. And European Union members share her feelings. Unions are all-powerful in Europe, and GM dropping the sale and the resultant job losses could wind up looking like a huge defeat for Germany and the entire EU at the hands of a recently bankrupt worldwide corporation.

In Europe's semi-socialist societies, people expect to train for good jobs, get good jobs and then keep those good jobs with benefits which would give a heart attack to the average Harvard-trained bean counter in this country. And they expect their governments to protect their rights ... and their jobs. For years, union members have been on the boards of directors of most large companies.

The sale would have needed approval from the Germans and the EU; apparently GM has had enough of dealing with national (and continental) governments and they cited the costs involved in the sale and the necessary waits for permissions from Euro entities as some of the reasons for their decision.

Opel started making cars in 1899; here's one of their first models

John Smith (wonder what name he uses when he checks into a hotel?), GM's group vice president for corporate planning and alliances, said other considerations in the cancellation were GM's and Opel's improved cash conditions.

The new Opel GT served as the basis for the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky

The plan for GM was to sell Opel to a consortium led by gigantic Canadian auto parts-maker Magna International which would be bankrolled by a Russian bank, Sberbank; the bank and Magna would each get 27.5% of the company, GM would keep 35% and the employees would own 10%. Ironically, Magna may get more work orders from GM because they're keeping Opel.

The sales cancellation move came as a shock to almost everyone in the worldwide auto business. Insider consensus was that GM would sell Opel as they've planned to for the past seven months, a move which would have infused many, many needed millions into GM's shaky coffers.

Canceling the sale is actually going to cost GM. They have to pay back a $2.3 billion bridge loan from the German government (meant to keep Opel open, up and running during the sales process) which they've already been paying back, but they still owe the Germans some $1.4 billion. GM plans to incur about $4.4 billion in restructuring expenses because of their decision to cancel Opel's sale.

Brendan DeMelle: Why Developing Countries Cannot Afford Failure in Copenhagen

2009-11-04T19:45:23Z

The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary in order to jolt the intransigent European Union and other developed nations to move forward with serious discussions, rather than obstruct progress by bringing only lofty rhetoric and no numbers to the negotiating table. The plan seems to have worked, albeit temporarily, as negotiations resumed today about how to extend the Kyoto Protocol and forge binding agreements with the West to slash emissions and provide cash to developing nations to deal with climate shocks and facilitate clean economic development.

However, delegates from developing nations and climate campaign groups continue to report that progress has been too slow in Barcelona, setting the stage for inevitable failure in Copenhagen. Activist groups and developing world negotiators continue to press the West to pick up the pace immediately or risk failing to reach a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen next month.

Europe renewed its non-specific posturing today, at first suggesting that developed countries could still bring promises, if not numbers, to Copenhagen, but ultimately confirming that the European Union – and the U.S. – have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates.

Copenhagen is the pinnacle in a series of negotiations stretching back two years over how to create a legally binding agreement that brings the United States into the fold on the international response to climate change, and simultaneously craft the next round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Since the U.S. failed to join the 1997 global treaty, negotiations have proceeded under these two tracks to ensure that work can continue on emissions reductions among Kyoto signatories, while the world grapples with how to hold the U.S. accountable internationally both on greenhouse gas reductions and financial commitments to assist developing nations.

Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77 plus China block, challenged Europe and the industrialized world to get serious again Wednesday in order to move the fragile talks forward.

Lumumba, whose ability to articulate the urgency and necessity of the developing world’s pleas for action on climate change is unrivaled by any other delegate present at the talks, made clear once again today that the West must bring science-based targets and an indelible ink pen to the Copenhagen negotiation table, or else Africa, low-lying island nations and indigenous peoples – the populations most vulnerable to climate change - will rapidly face death and economic ruin as the atmosphere cooks and sea levels rise.

In the G-77 press conference this afternoon, I asked Lumumba whether he was concerned by the potential domino effect of additional developed countries adopting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s position, reported by Reuters on Monday, that a “politically binding agreement” is more likely to emerge in Copenhagen rather than a legally binding agreement. The “politically binding” sentiment seems poised to snowball among other major industrialized nations, in spirit if not yet in the same exact words.

Lumumba, in his typically graceful fashion, calmly but sternly replied to my question stating, “I do not know of anything called a politically binding agreement. If there is anything that you know about politics and political manifestos is that they are worth very little. Tell me of any politician who delivered on his political manifesto. Is it Gordon Brown[UK]? Is it Kevin Rudd[Australia]?”

False promises of politically-binding commitment without legally binding teeth will not be worth a damn to Africa and the rest of the vulnerable developing countries. As soon as one world leader from the West who signs onto such a wishy-washy agreement loses power, and their successor refuses to comply with such a non-binding agreement – an entirely possible scenario since there is no legal basis to follow through on such a commitment – the whole process would fail. Climate change would continue to punish the developing world, which would face many more years of delay while the negotiators reconvened to start over.

So only a legally binding agreement is acceptable in Copenhagen, or Africa and other vulnerable populations are doomed to death and destruction, Lumumba told me.

“What can we achieve in Barcelona? This is what we are asking developed countries. You have to live up to the ambition that saves the world. In Africa’s words, it is 40 [percent emissions reductions by 2020] minimum. Anything south of 40 means that Africa’s population, Africa’s land mass is offered destruction as the only alternative to choose from. And I think you can logically understand why the African states are very angry about that,” he said.

Yes we can, Mr. Lumumba. Yes we can.

Watch the G-77 press conference here. (I ask my question at the 8:15-9 minute mark and Lumumba responds beginning at the 16 minute mark)

Curious to hear the European response to the G-77’s clear call for a legally binding agreement, later today I asked the EU delegation to explain specifically what timeframe would be acceptable to set legally binding targets if Copenhagen fails to produce solid results and instead ends with such a politically binding (i.e. hollow) agreement, or worse still, no agreement.

It was the last question the E.U. delegation took from the press today, and provides all the clarity that Africa and the developing countries can expect from the industrialized world for now.

Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, sitting next to the nodding Swedish delegate (Sweden currently holds the E.U. presidency) responded simply, “It should be as quickly as possible after Copenhagen.” (Full stop, microphones cut, end of press conference.*)

In contrast to the developing world’s clear, specific position, the E.U. seems to act as if these negotiations just started, as if talks haven’t been going on for years since Kyoto. Europe seems to project the image that it is suddenly being asked to answer this fundamental question.

In reality, Europe and the rest of the developed world have had more than ample time over the past decade to develop a clear position. But when pressed on specifics now, just weeks before the world expects a concrete treaty, they are still flailing around like fish out of water.

Much work remains to be done, and 99% of the burden rests on the E.U. and U.S. to show the rest of the world they understand the severe implications of any further delay in responding to the climate crisis. The anger from Africa and the rest of the developing world will continue to grow, as will the carbon emissions responsible for climate change.

Europe and the U.S. must stand up and be counted.

*The E.U. press conference is not online yet, but will be here tomorrow.

Think Tank's Advice To Europe: Stop 'Fetishizing' American Relationship

2009-11-03T17:20:53Z

The council released a study on Monday called "Toward a Post-American Europe," based on wide-ranging interviews and research conducted in the 27 EU member states. In it, the authors make a clear appeal to European leaders: This "fetishization" of the trans-Atlantic relationship must stop, write Jeremy Shapiro and Nick Witney. It is high time that Europe declare a new, "post-American" age and do away with old myths about the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Italy: Crucifixes Banned In Schools, Rules European Court Of Human Rights

2009-11-03T11:10:03Z

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

Vaclav Klaus Signs Lisbon Treaty, Ending Year-Long Stalemate

2009-11-03T10:17:37Z

Vaclav Klaus, Czech president, on Tuesday signed the Lisbon treaty, ending a year-long stalemate with his fellow EU leaders and bringing the new governing framework into force.

Blair EU Presidency Divides Europe

2009-10-29T11:06:13Z

The Spanish daily newspaper El Pais carried a harsh critique of Tony Blair's candidature written by Emilio Men�ndez del Valle, a former diplomat and socialist member of the EU parliament.

Sarkozy Spends $410,000 On Presidential Shower He Never Uses

2009-10-28T09:06:49Z

French financial watchdogs slammed President Nicolas Sarkozy for spending £160m on his country's six months in charge of the EU - including £250,000 on a personal presidential shower which he never used.

Blair Suffers Setbacks In Bid For EU Presidency

2009-10-27T12:52:45Z

LUXEMBOURG (AFP) -- Tony Blair's prospects of leading a new-look European Union took a double hit on Tuesday as a serious rival became the first to declare his intentions and Italy backtracked on earlier support.

Leslie Pratch, Ph.D.: Back to the Roots: Entrepreneurship and Global Competition

2009-10-26T17:14:16Z

In the coming months, we will come together to offer a tangential view -- not a consensus view, and certainly not the average view. We seek to synthesize information and ideas from different vectors and extrapolate a resultant vector in an orthogonal dimension. Raj is an entrepreneur/technologist born and raised in India, educated in the United States, who now markets green energy solutions globally. Leslie is a clinical psychologist with an M.B.A. in strategy and finance from Chicago Booth who specializes in working with private equity investors. Through writing about capitalism, economics, education, the environment, and value creation, we aspire to create a social good.

Economic disparity is what creates value because at every level there is an opportunity for arbitrage. I may have a particular way to leverage my status or technology to create a good, such as more economic wealth relative to someone else, on an average basis, not on an absolute basis. In emerging economies like India and China and in the past in America, this opportunity differs greatly from what we have in the U.S. today.

By stratification of wealth, we do not mean what happened under Communism, where a few, few party elite lived like kings and almost everyone else had beans and water for dinner. What matters is a continuum with easy mobility upwards and a finite probability to jump across multiple layers. It is only capitalism that allows individuals to move up. The very rich and the very poor exist under capitalism and communism. We must look to the middle class, and its size and growth, to see the secret of capitalism.

Look to the middle class. That is the where the action is. In Czarist Russia, the number of levels was 1,000. The top echelon lived like kings and the rest of the nation starved. Mao Tse-tung starved tens of millions and lived a lawless and disgusting life well beyond the way anyone in the U.S. lives. Look to mobility. What we want is the chance to apply our talents. Give us the chance to move up!

China has decided to invest in us simply out of selfishness. We are among the best places to be right now for their money. If we continue to run peace-time deficits to the sky, as we presently are, that will change. Our worry is not that China will harm us; they want us to be able to pay them back. It is rather that our own Congress will harm us. Milton Friedman did a wonderful study on wealth stratification (cited in Free to Choose, 1980). He showed was that way back when, wealth was far more widely spaced between poor and rich (and there were far more poor) and worst of all, the poor did not move into being rich, ever. Capitalism allows those, like you and me, who work very hard, to move up. No other system really does. "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." And hence, capitalism was born.

Raj had a car driver in India who said that in 1958 he moved from a small village in the south into the same slum featured in Slum Dog Millionaire. There, he raised two kids. His oldest son is a civil engineer in Mumbai. His youngest son entered graduate school in electrical engineering and hopes to pursue a Ph.D. in the United States. Their father sold his property and made a large profit. But he still drives a taxi. This family has leaped across several wealth layers from abject poverty to middle class, all in one generation. This is the true story of Dharavi, the largest slum in the world.

If businesses in the U.S. cut salary and fringe costs by 35-65% (fringe costs consisting mostly of health care and dental, disability, life insurance), we will become a more competitive economy, especially compared to countries with an edge in information technology. We recognize we need to reflect on this issue and will do so in coming posts.

If in addition we also replaced "cash for clunkers" with "capital for entrepreneurs," especially those pushing the boundaries on solar, vehicles, biological sciences, and computer sciences, we would create thousands of new enterprises and businesses across the country. These would generate more wealth, which would benefit not only the U.S. economy; it would also create a forward path for the rest of the world. The federal government should quit bailing out uncompetitive large industries and financial institutions and instead become a potent venture capitalist!

A fundamental macroeconomic factor that must happen is to bring down the cost of labor in the U.S. rather than enacting trade barriers. That is why it is important to visit places like India and China. The tax policies in India are far more progressive than in the U.S.; the social policies are also very friendly. The socialist policies that existed in India during the 60s, 70s, and 80s are very different from what one sees today in India. A true capitalistic tax system would be to have an inheritance tax. Taxing the wealth from one generation to the next is the answer. Unfortunately, the Bush administration changed that.

In India, the rise in taxation as one's income grew used to be exponential. At the top levels of income, the tax rate was close to 99%. The result was an underground economy. Now the capital gain tax is a flat 15% (up from 10% a year ago) and the maximum individual income tax rate is 30%. India had policy makers who created a smart taxation policy. At the same time, the Indian government is involved in other socially beneficial programs. Our fear is that discourse in the U.S. has become so polarized that it will become impossible to enact the economic policy that will inspire entrepreneurial activity in the short- and medium-term and the correct socioeconomic policy for the long-term.

Entrepreneurship is created by less governmental intervention and lower capital gains taxes. It has been shown a hundred times. In the end, rising consumption in India will raise U.S. income levels. As an example, most Indians are used to income disparity. It is not that different income levels are bad; social and economic systems are not designed to give parity at the same time. Any economic system will say there must be a path to happiness. Either the system offers a path up or the individual accepts his or her station.

What policy makers in the U.S. should be doing is to understand, analyze, and empathize with the competition. Then, we can build our competitive strategy. Smart people in power should travel. When they travel, they should get a full, rich view of the landscape.

On October 15, 2009, The New York Times reported that the European Union and South Korea took a major step toward a free trade agreement aimed at generating billions of euros in new commerce. With talks on global trade deadlocked and rising concern about protectionism, analysts said the deal could signal other nations to press ahead with their own bilateral pacts. After two years of negotiations, an agreement was signed in Brussels by the European trade commissioner and her South Korean counterpart. The pact now needs approval from the European Union's member states, some of which face intense opposition to the deal from sectors like the automotive industry. Under the agreement, the two sides will remove virtually all tariffs between their economies, as well as many non-tariff barriers, over a five-year period. The European Commission, the executive arm of the union, said the trade in goods between Europe and South Korea was worth about 65 billion euros ($97 billion) in 2008, and that the deal was worth 19 billion euros to European exporters alone. The European Union runs a deficit with South Korea in goods trade. A free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, reached in 2007, has yet to be ratified and is stuck in Congress. Some American politicians oppose the deal over concerns it will harm automakers.

This furor over free trade versus protectionism is relatively minor compared to issues implicating a combination of a floating exchange rate system and the end of all currency controls and trade barriers, even "voluntary" export quotas. As Paul Krugman points out, "Trade barriers are a minor issue for the United States today; even small wrinkles in health care policy, like overpayment to Medicare Advantage plans, probably matter more to public welfare than all the trade restrictions now in place."

His point is well taken. Political discourse and policy making in the United States has become too myopic and insular. He also noted recently, "U.S. officials have been extremely cautious about confronting the China problem." He believes China's caution makes little sense. "Suppose the Chinese were to do what Wall Street and Washington seem to fear and start selling some of their dollar hoard. Under current conditions, this would actually help the U.S. economy by making our exports more competitive." With the world economy in a precarious state, seeking economic policies by major players that worsen the problems of other countries cannot be tolerated. Something must be done about China's currency.

In addition, we should keep a watchful eye on China's increasing hunger for commodities and the implications thereof on commodity prices. Take for example, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). CNOOC is in talks with oil-rich Nigeria to buy large stakes in some of the richest oil blocks in the world. In a research note dated October 19, 2009, Deutche Bank writes:

China has grown closer economic and business ties with emerging markets across the globe, raising its profile and enhancing its economic and political clout. Thus far, China's interests have been driven mainly by its thirst for energy and commodities -- in short, commercially-driven. It is pointless for traditional powers to try to stop China's growing influence. It would be more productive if traditional powers responded to China's emergence by enhancing their own positive engagements with EM regions.

Given that nations are economically tied, it is hard for one nation to wage a differential war against another. We should become more cooperative and look at larger interests of humanity. Not that we would confuse that argument with entrepreneurship and the ability to make wealth.

Milton Friedman argues in Essays in Positive Economics, that "current economic and political conditions make a system of flexible or floating exchange rates-exchange rates freely determined in an open market primarily by private dealings, and like other market prices, varying from day to day-absolutely essential for the fulfillment of our basic economic objective: the achievement and maintenance of a free and prosperous world community engaging in unrestricted multilateral trade. There is scarcely a facet of international economic policy for which implicit acceptance of a system of rigid exchange rates does not create serious and unnecessary difficulties." "The sooner a system of flexible exchange rates is established, the sooner a system of unrestricted multilateral trade will become a real possibility." (pp. 157-158)

If there is no major incentive to move up in the income strata, why work harder, unless I am motivated by altruism. One can either argue that spiritually it's the right thing to do. Or one can strap on a rational argument: Every human being has the underlying energy to work and establish a differentiation between oneself and the rest of society.

The potential to move up the wage ladder is what makes great nations. In order for the U.S. to keep a dominant world position, we need to be 10 steps ahead of the rest of the world. We need to propel the rest of the population up but by generating new wealth, by creating new avenues for wealth, rather than taxing everyone more. It is critical to have the incentive to move up the curve. Silicon Valley is an example. Overnight, entrepreneurs could jump up income levels radically, from making $200,000 to making $2 million after an IPO. The promise of wealth creation drives innovation. A government that takes away the potential to jump across brackets of income will not have sustained global influence.

Raj Alur is Chief Marketing Officer responsible for global marketing and sales at Silicon Valley energy storage startup whose products will become an essential complement to all renewable energy power generation. Raj was previously a venture capitalist with Vesbridge Partners and St. Paul Venture Capital, a CEO of a Boston area wireless data startup, VP of Marketing at Lucent Technologies amongst others. He started his career as a software engineer designing operating systems and file systems. Raj holds a M.S in Computer Science from Boston University and an M.B.A. from Cornell.

Tony Blair Assailed At Palestinian Mosque, Called A 'Terrorist' (VIDEO)

2009-10-20T14:28:06Z

Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy for the "Quartet" of powers - the European Union, the United States, Russia and the United Nations, was assailed by a Palestinian man during a visit to a mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron on Tuesday.

Robert Kuttner: The Blair Project

2009-10-18T22:12:00Z

Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who turned a once-progressive party into Tory-lite, is now in line to be the first President of Europe. Given Blair's central role in creating the conditions that invited Britain's financial collapse, this idea makes about as much sense as putting protégés of Bob Rubin in charge cleaning up after the mess that Wall Street made (whoops, that happened, too).

The new constitution for the European Union, unlike its current set of basic laws, provides for a strong president. After much delay, the proposed constitution is now likely to take effect because the Irish recently reversed their "no" vote. (In the current crisis, aid from the EU is helping to keep their economy from going the way of Iceland.) The last holdout, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who doesn't much like the treaty, said Saturday that he would not stand in its way.

Blair is in need of a high-profile job, and President of the EU suits his ambition. But there seems to be remarkable forgiveness for the fact that Blair helped launch the race to the bottom in financial regulation that helped produce the financial collapse. Under Blair, the British Labour Party decided that the best way to fight Thatcherism was to go it one better and cut a deal with the City of London, Britain's Wall Street. Britain would become the global capital of unregulated hedge funds, private equity, and casino products like credit default swaps. In the U.K., this was known as "light-touch regulation." The bankers, in turn, would give New Labour their financial support.

The unit of AIG that helped take down the world economy was based in London, where it could enjoy even more feeble supervision than in George Bush's United States. Early in the present decade, whenever Americans began warning that finance was becoming dangerously speculative, defenders of business as usual solemnly warned that if we began regulating the affair, the show would move offshore to London, finance's new wild west.

Blair's notion was that it didn't much matter if Britain was losing its manufacturing economy. The City of London, as the center of the world's deregulated money market, would carry Britain. Well, it carried Britain to collapse. The aftermath of Britain's bubble economy today is a bigger disaster even than its American counterpart.

Blair also helped wreck what was once a proud left-of-center party. Progressives have been systematically purged from New Labour. Under Blair's successor, the dour Gordon Brown, Labour's popularity is now at a postwar low, setting the stage for a Conservative comeback despite the fact that the Tories offer nothing more in the way of solutions than do the Republicans in the United States.

Much the same thing happened in Germany a few weeks ago, where a Social Democratic Party (SPD), which had abandoned social democracy a decade ago in favor of neo-liberalism, turned in its worst electoral performance in six decades. If you wonder why left parties are not making any gains from the worst crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression, you need only look to the British Labour Party and the German SPD. They have nothing to offer.

Why, then, is Blair likely to be the first President of Europe? Because he is just what Europe's ruling financial elite wants -- nominally a man of the center-left who can be trusted to continue business as usual.

There are alternatives to Blair, but they are long shots. One is Joschka Fishcher, the well-respected leader of Germany's Greens and Germany's former foreign minister in the late SPD-Green coalition government. Another is Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the former Danish Social Democratic prime minister who is an actual social democrat as well as Europe's leading advocate of real financial reform.

Politically, however, the failure of nominally center-left parties that emulated the center right has undercut the appeal of genuine progressives. The more likely scenario that could spare us Blair is that leaders of several of Europe's smaller member nations are not quite sure that they want such a high-profile figure, and a compromise candidate could be a functionary or a less visible leader from a small country.

Despite the fact that modern Europe is generally friendlier to a managed form of capitalism than the US, the Blair project reminds us that real reform is not likely to originate in Europe any time soon. That puts even more pressure on Barack Obama to get financial reform right.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect, a senior fellow at Demos, and author of Obama's Challenge.

Jim Luce: U.N. Ambassador Kohona: Sri Lanka Refugee Situation Improving

2009-10-13T21:55:16Z

Fourteen years after the civil war in Rwanda, refugees are still
living in mud huts. In Bosnia, following
Balkanization, people lacked heat and electricity for years.

On the Afghani-Pakistani border, millions today are living in squalor.

In all of these refugee populations, disease was and often remains
endemic. Food and water scarce.

In contrast, last spring a government moved mountains to help
its people.

I witnessed the end of three decades of violence in Sri Lanka, as
the government finally overcame the world's largest terrorist organization,
restoring peace in to the island.

The enemy had been formidable.
Known as LTTE, referred to as the Tamil Tigers, it has its own army,
navy, air force, and suicide commando units (see
my HuffPost story, Explaining the Tamil Tigers).

The Tamil Tigers used child soldiers and women suicide bombers to
wage their violence but unsuccessful battle against the Sri Lankan people.

The Tigers used 300,000 of their own people as human shields to
protect themselves from the advancing government troops. Over 100,000 people died in the conflict, the
majority of them non-Tamils.

The Tigers mined their
own farms, fields, temples, roads – and fired upon Tamils trying to escape to
the government forces.

At the end of the
conflict, 250,000 Tamils were left – many of them near the beach where the
final defeat occurred. These refugees
became the responsibility of the Sri Lankan government.

The government began
immediately to house them, lay water pipes, build sch

ools and health clinics. But the Sri Lankan government cannot solve
this situation alone.

Interviewing the Sri Lankan Ambassador to
the U.N., then the Foreign Secretary, last spring in Colombo. I also met the Sri Lankan
Ambassador in Washington who was also in Colombo (right).

According to the Sri
Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Palitha Kohona, who granted me an
exclusive interview for the Huffington
Post last week in his New York office, 54 NGO’s are now operating within
the camps.

I have known Palitha for
years and have spoken with him on these issues repeatedly.

“The problem is that we
refuse to permit IDP tourism,” Palitha told me.
“These internally displaced people (IDPs) deserve dignity.” They are not, so to speak, a museum exhibition
or animals at the zoo. “We flatly say
‘No’ to refugee camp tourism.”

“We need help. All legitimate NGOs, with adequate funding,
are welcomed to assist us help these people,” the Ambassador said.

U.N. Security General Ban-Ki Moon visited the refugee camp shortly after the
conflict ended.

The International Red
Cross (IRC), which assisted during the conflict by providing food and medicine
and visiting prisoners, is negotiating now with the government on how best to help
at this stage of resettlement.

“There is a new mandate
being worked out with the IRC to assist with medical facilities and improving
conditions throughout the camps,” Palitha said.
He noted that currently 130 Sri Lankan physicians are operating within
the camps.

Currently 130 Sri Lankan
physicians are operating within the camps.

Major problems stand in
the way of simply releasing all of the internally displaced people (IDPs).

The areas
around the camps and in indeed much of the North has been mined by the LTTE. The de-mining process, as Princess Diana
reminded us, is excruciatingly difficult, lengthy, and when it fails, leaves
dead or maimed civilians.

The
international community is helping remove them, but far more help is needed. Over one million mines remain.

Thousands
of Tamil Tigers tried to blend into the civilian population to escape war crime
charges, and to attempt to reconstruct the Tiger cause, continuing Sri Lanka’s
conflict.

According to government,
12,700 IDP’s self-identified themselves as combatants, and an estimated 8 to
10,000 more remain hiding in the camps. Of
the 250,000 IDPs, 167,000 have now been cleared and are ready to return to
their homes as soon as possible.

The Tigers
buried weapons throughout their former territory. Every day the government discovers buried
guns throughout the north and eastern provinces where the Tigers had controlled.

The Tigers
removed much of the roofing of the civilian population’s homes before the end
of the conflict, both to force Tamils from their homes and to steal materials
to create ad-hoc camps. The government
is trying to repair the damages so that Tamils can return to their homes.

The Tigers
destroyed water and electrical connections throughout their territory, which is
now being replaced by the government.

Although the government
has built some housing, the majority of the quarter million refugees live in
tents provided by the U.N.

The monsoon rains that
sweep Sri Lanka are not seen by the government as an insurmountable problem for
the camps. “We have known these rains
for thousands of years. They come every
season. To Sri Lankans, they are normal
and we know how to live with them,” says the U.N. Ambassador.

The U.S. and E.U. are
assisting the U.N. in reconstruction.
India, Australia, and Japan provide assistance directly to the Sri
Lankan government.

The Ambassador welcomes
assistance from the international community to help his government deal with
this humanitarian crisis brought about by the Tamil Tigers. Sri Lanka has never been an affluent nation,
and the global economic crisis has hurt it as much as any other country.

I personally have been
saddened to witness too many unknowing people give the Sri Lankan people
advice. Talk is cheap. Talk based on ignorance or prejudice is dangerous.

What the people of Sri Lanka
need now is concrete assistance. Anyone
can criticize. The questions remain: Who
is willing to help? And how?

Edited by Ethel Grodzins Romm.

Barry D. Wood: Headscarves Pull Turkey East and West

2009-10-09T11:57:07Z

Istanbul: In bustling Istanbul, the city of 15 million that straddles Europe and Asia, headscarves -- from austere greys to fashionable red plaids -- have sprouted like spring flowers. Where once there were few, now perhaps a quarter of adult women wear some form of head covering. Observing the starkly different presentations of female identity, a visitor wonders whether Breck curls, plunging bodices and tight-fitting jeans can co-exist with covered heads, dour frocks and floor length coats?

To some Turks, headscarves are the thin wedge of Islamic fundamentalism, a warning that secular Turkey could succumb to religious extremism and become another Iran.

When Kemal Ataturk's 1923 revolution overthrew the feudal sultanate that had ruled Turkey for 600 years, it became illegal for men to wear the Islamic fez while women were discouraged from wearing the headscarf. This secularist orthodoxy endured until the current conservative government, strengthened by a second electoral victory in 2007, felt strong enough to begin rolling back some of the Kemalist restrictions on personal freedom. So far, Turkey's powerful military -- which since 1960 has staged four coups in the name of defending secularism -- has stood aside.

Observing stylish, uncovered women seated next to young traditionally attired women on a city bus, I ask the graduate student in psychology, with whom I've been talking, what he thinks of the controversy. He replies that there is no need for concern. "It is," says Yavuz, "nothing more than an expression of freedom." Isn't that what democracy is all about, he asks? "Believe me," he continues, "there is absolutely nothing to fear."

Nikar Goksel, a young American-Turkish researcher at the European Stability Institute in Istanbul, agrees. For her, a woman's choice whether to cover or not to cover is a welcome manifestation of freedom in a society that for centuries held women in subservience. She defends Turkey's conservative government, which she says has addressed what its predecessors did not, the deeper issues of gender equality like equality in the courts, greater educational and employment opportunities, and child care. "Banning women who wear the headscarf from university or excluding them from workplaces does not help the larger goal of empowering women. It actually serves the men who try to keep their women dependent." The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has not taken a stand on the headscarf, but it is supportive of the government's promotion of freedom of expression, political pluralism and cultural diversity.

Volkan, a 28-year-old computer programmer, denounces the headscarf, which he regards as backward and dangerous. "What Turkey needs," he tells me, "is more technology, more modernity, more foreign contact" so that it can become a member of the European Union. He says husbands and fathers often assert their familial dominance by insisting that wives and daughters wear the headscarf, which is seen as a political statement in support of the government. Some Islamic sects give money to families whose women wear traditional religious attire.

The tension that pulls educated women in two directions is felt acutely felt by Ayca, an Istanbul woman of 25 who is visiting her parents from Birmingham, England, where she has worked in public relations for three years. She speaks of the anguish of wanting to please her parents, but also to live an independent life. What, she asks, if she were to bring home an English boyfriend? If she returns to live in Istanbul, would she find the same professional opportunities? And, she asks, what about pressures to embrace the accoutrements of her Muslim faith, like the headscarf?

Innocuous or dangerous, female attire in Istanbul is strikingly diverse, particularly among those wearing the headscarf. As yet there is no dominant traditional style. While older women tend to choose less colorful scarves, tied simply under the chin along with modest, shapeless, floor length clothing, younger women often choose a brightly colored scarf that is loosely tied, sometimes even with a tuft of hair showing. They can be seen in equally bright and tightly-fitting pants that leave little imagination as to the shape of their bodies. At the extreme, a tiny minority wear the Arab-style long black chadors, that cover everything except the face.

Turkey has come a long way from the time only fifty years ago when foreigners were not allowed to travel beyond the Euphrates River to the remote regions of the east. It is in rural Turkey, where many of the country's 52 million people reside, that religion remains dominant.

In his memoir of growing up in Istanbul in the 1960s, Nobel Prize winning novelist Orhan Pamuk remembers that the religious poor of the city were always viewed in his upper-class milieu as an obstacle to progress. Pamuk writes that for his family, the piety of the poor, "their good-hearted purity carried a price. It was making the dream of a modern, prosperous, westernized Turkey more difficult to achieve."

The complexities of the headscarf debate eludes many Americans, for whom freedom, tolerance, and diversity are axioms of our democracy. We would ask why is the headscarf such a big deal? Europeans, living among larger, often veiled Islamic populations, tend to be more fearful of Muslim fundamentalism and view the headscarf with suspicion. President Obama, in Normandy in June with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, was asked whether Muslim girls should be permitted to wear headscarves in school. He affirmed America's commitment to freedom of religious expression and concluded "we're not going to tell people what to wear." Sarkozy supports the French law that bans headscarves from schools.

Istanbul is a paradox, a modern city where the faithful are called to prayer five times a day. Istanbul both connects and divides -- Europe and Asia, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Now its women are divided. The headscarf pulls them in opposite directions -- between east and west, between modernity and tradition, between male dictates and their own, often painful, choices.