Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

European Breakfast - Jan. 14

by Fran Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:45:26 PM EST

Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Suffering follows an evil thought as the wheels of a cart follow the oxen that draws it. Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think. Joy follows a pure thought like a shadow that never leaves.

Buddha


Display:
Dawn: Spain rejects US call to cancel deal: Planes for Venezuela

MADRID, Jan 13: Spain protested on Friday that its sale of 12 military planes to Venezuela must go ahead despite being blocked by the United States because of Washington's concerns about President Hugo Chavez.

The US veto to the deal is the latest move in a period of stormy relations between Spain and the United States.

The number two in the Spanish government, Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, told a press conference: "The Bush administration decided to refuse licenses for planes that Spain sold to Venezuela and it did so for reasons that the Spanish government does not share.

"That said, the contracts were signed with another country, Venezuela, and must be respected."

The US ambassador to Spain, Eduardo Aguirre, had informed Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos on Thursday of Washington's decision to refuse a license for the deal.

A ministry spokesman said the US decision was "intended to block this commercial contract involving planes equipped with American parts".

The spokesman denied Washington was acting politically in halting the two-billion-dollar deal for the transport and surveillance planes, but a statement from the US embassy in Madrid indicated otherwise.

"Despite being democratically elected, the government of President Hugo Chavez has systematically undermined democratic institutions, pressured and harassed independent media and the political opposition, and grown progressively more autocratic and anti-democratic," it charged.

by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:49:23 PM EST
ABC News.au: Spain, Venezuela override US military sales block

The Spanish Government has confirmed it will go ahead with the sale of military hardware worth more than $2 billion to Venezuela, despite US attempts to block the deal.

The US refused Spain permission to export 12 aircraft and eight naval patrol boats to Venezuela because they contained some American-built equipment.

But Spain now says it will use alternative European technology.

The US ambassador to Madrid, Eduardo Aguirre, says the Venezuelan Government's actions have contributed to regional instability and the proposed sale could complicate matters.

But Spain's Deputy Prime Minister, Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, says the planes have no offensive capability.

He says Madrid has fulfilled European Union and NATO regulations.

Relations with Washington have been strained since Spain's socialist Government withdrew its troops from the US-led force in Iraq shortly after winning elections in March 2004.

Venezuela says the planes are needed to combat drug smuggling but US officials fear the equipment could be used to arm Colombian rebels.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a friend at EADS and she tells me that they face this all the time, for many products, in many countries (including NATO members - sometimes it's just protectionism).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not just a bit uncomfortable with Airbus/EADS developing into a defense constructor too. If it wants to be as big and profitable in this sector as Boeing, Lockheed or Dassault, it will go into deals as shady as those, with dictators and democratic imperialists around the world - and taint civilian Airbus in the process.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The issue is that fundamentally civilian aerospace companies are not viable in the modern world. Add in the WTO stink over government subsidies (which the US government sidesteps by defense funding) and it's perhaps clear why this is happening.

This is not to say it is a good thing, but perhaps it is inevitable.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 01:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The issue is that fundamentally civilian aerospace companies are not viable in the modern world.

Could you expand on this?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:11:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Essentially, as I note in my response to Jerome, I overstated. It is the big two (Boeing and Airbus) and their big aircraft that are not viable. The research cycle, the development cycle, the construction cycle and the buying cycle for these aircraft are all too long and too expensive to be entirely commercial in today's world. We don't have the financial systems to fund this kind of thing without government support.

I am almost definite that Jerome, being a banker, will disagree, but modern market funding tools just don't like to work on this kind of scale and time horizon. Both companies exist off military subsidies (and indeed always have) on the research and development sides.

I also mixed up my post a bit, the killer thing that will push Airbus into the military is the US use of the military as covert subsidy for Boeing. It looks like that will become the WTO approved approach...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 03:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Airbus started on the commercial side, and beat Boeing at that game, despite the lack of military "support". Sure, it did get the public loans, but it did reimburse them, so it CAN be said that Airbus is a profitable concern. As as Airbus, until the A400M was a purely civilian outfit, it is possible to say that it was ecxclusively the civilian bit that made money. They simply made better planes than Boeing for a while. Now Boeing is fighthing back, supported by the airlines that want to make sure that they always have at least 2 potential suppliers - and both are making money.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whilst I agree that Airbus is a fine concern, it didn't pay for 90% of it's R&D. That came from constituent member companies military budgets.

That's the big issue. Neither Boeing nor Airbus can actually find commercial funding for long term development of large aeroplanes without either government assistance (and loans count as government assistance when you talk about "market viability") or military R&D boondoggles. It's true that in the long run the airlines have a vested interest in supporting these companies, but how many of the world's airlines are actually in the operating shape to really do so?

Maybe you know more about this than I do, the engineering  and management types I talk to about these things can be pretty cynical about the way things get done.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The issue is that fundamentally civilian aerospace companies are not viable in the modern world.

I seriously doubt that.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, let me refine that. Neither Airbus or Boeing is viable as a going concern in the world as it is at this time.

Sure, Bombardier is making money hand over fist, but that is a very different segment of the business. It is also easy to believe that Japan/Taiwan/Korea could develop a company that is viable, but then, they run business very differently.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 03:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Independent: Dutch government could fall over Afghanistan

The Dutch cabinet yesterday agreed to let MPs vote on a plan to send 1,400 soldiers to Afghanistan after weeks of haggling that have threatened the county's government.

The move was welcomed at Nato, which is responsible for the peacekeeping operation, but Dutch MPs warned they could still withhold support from the plan and provoke a fresh crisis.

In the Netherlands, the row has evoked painful memories of 1995, when lightly armed Dutch UN peacekeepers failed to prevent the massacre of thousands of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Bosnia.

Nato and EU officials have warned that their credibility is at stake and that if the Dutch refuse to deploy, Washington will conclude that most European nations are unwilling to tackle difficult missions. The stakes are particularly high for Nato since its secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is Dutch, and has said he expects the mission to go ahead.

The Dutch parliament will start debating the issue in the next two weeks, and a vote against or a slim majority in favour would make it politically impossible for the centre-right coalition government to continue.

by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:53:30 PM EST
Guardian: Fighting shy

Dutch courage is waning as Nato faces a crisis of credibility over its latest Afghan deployment, writes Ian Black

It is old news that Nato has been searching for a role since the end of the cold war, and especially since its terrible divisions over Iraq. But a potentially serious crisis is looming over the deployment of troops to Afghanistan to take up the slack left by the departure of US forces. And the unlikely culprit for this mission is the Netherlands, a loyal founder member of the Atlantic alliance.

holds what is shaping up to be a crucial vote on the issue. This is jangling nerves at Nato's Brussels headquarters and especially in the office of the secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who happens, embarrassingly, to be a former Dutch foreign minister.
But the signs are alarming. Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister and Harry Potter lookalike, is trying to resolve differences with D66, the junior partner in his three-party, centre-right coalition. With the opposition Greens and Socialists also firmly against the mission - and irritated by a rising chorus of complaints about US pressure - Mr de Hoop Scheffer and his officials are publicly hoping for the best, but privately expecting the worst.

This crisis matters for two reasons. The first is that Nato was united over Afghanistan, in stark contrast to Iraq. Following the post-9/11 "thanks but no thanks" snub to Nato's offer of help by the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, opposition to the war by France, Germany and Belgium produced what the then American ambassador called a "near-death experience". Nato's battered credibility, diplomats agree, is now very much at stake.

The second is that Nato, with 9,000 personnel already on the ground, has been doing a good job in parts of Afghanistan. It took over the Kabul-based International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2003 - its first ever mission out of its cold war-era area of operations - and has since expanded into the countryside with so-called "provincial reconstruction teams". In parallel, the US, with other allies, has continued with its own Operation Enduring Freedom, a counter-insurgency campaign against what are optimistically termed "remnants" of the Taliban and al-Qaida in the remote badlands on the border with Pakistan.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again...karma.

Needless threats and pressure and bad decisions and even worse planning by the US administration are certainly going to make others nervous about a second time around.

by gradinski chai on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 03:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is is about lack of "courage", or something else? At least they mention that NATO risks losing credibility, and Rumsfeld's snub of NATO back in 2001.

How is it relevant that Balkenende is a "Harry Potter Lookalike", and is he?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Dutch got burned once when their "reconstruction" mission to Iraq turned into an insurgency.  I don't really think they want to get burned again in the same way.
by IdiotSavant on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He definitely is a Harry Potter lookalike, but I could not tell you how relevant it is. Maybe as relevant as the description of the clothes or haircut of female politicians...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As (ir)relevant, and as irksome. That Guardian article is really badly written.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Harry Potter lookalike-ness is something even Balkenende used for his own image campaign, it is a commonplace. Guardian can only be accused of using catchphrases mindlessly to 'lighten up' its text.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can we do without NATO? It seems its only role is for the Americans to have an easy way to order the Europeans around, and to impose their choices in military procurement. Article 5 was killed by the Americans (after the Europeans invoked it after 9/11 and were spurned), so what's the point of the rest for Europeans?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:07:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the main function for NATO seems to be as a holding pattern for countries aspiring to join the EU? Whilst that is a valuable role, it could certainly be assumed in other ways.

Of course the big complication is that the EU doesn't have the defence credibility to do without NATO at the moment.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it increasingly does, with its budding headquarters, and tactical capacity. The EU, as such, is now running the show in one of the Balkan countries in the place of NATO.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, increasingly does, but there are a couple of questions to be answered before we dismantle NATO. Notably:

  1. Budgets : Are we prepared to cover some of the things we have relied on the US for in the past? (Force size, logistics infrastructure, etc.)

  2. Stablity : We haven't yet produced the political structure to make such an EU force predictable. NATO by contrast is very predictable, if the US wants it, it will happen, if not, most likely it won't. (And as a corollary, we have to be aware that the US may well try to sabotage the effort and stand up to that.)

To be clear, I want this to happen. I just think there is more work to be done yet and some of it, like the above questions, IMO need our leaders to actually show some backbone and lead and decide. Up to now we've relied a lot on "evolving an approach" which I think can only take us so far.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 03:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True, but the EUY is slowly building that, while NATO is slowly lsoing its political coherence.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dawn: Germany admits it `passed on information' to US

BERLIN, Jan 13: German intelligence agents gathered information in Iraq in 2003 and shared it with their US counterparts, a government spokesman said on Friday amid a furore over reports that Berlin secretly helped the war effort.

"There was a decision from the German government that two agents would remain in Iraq to gather information. There was a regular exchange of information with the US side," foreign ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger said.

Deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg said that the aim of the exchange was to prevent attacks on civilian targets and save lives.

"Agents of the BND (the German intelligence services abroad) passed on information to prevent civilian institutions like schools, hospitals and embassies mistakenly becoming the target of attacks," he said.

"This information was passed on between friendly nations in a bid to achieve this aim," Steg added.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday at first denied then confirmed that the BND had kept agents in Iraq after the story was broken by ARD public television and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

The newspaper reported that the secret services' aim was to prevent the bombing of civilian targets.

But ARD quoted a former US defence department official as saying that the German secret services also provided "direct help" in identifying targets that should be bombed.

by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:55:18 PM EST
BBC: Bush rebuffs Merkel on Guantanamo

US President George W Bush has rejected criticism over the Guantanamo Bay camp raised by German Chancellor Angela Merkel during talks in Washington.

President Bush said it was a necessary part of protecting the American people.

But the two leaders presented a united front over Iran resuming its nuclear programme, and commentators said they appeared to have got on well.

It is her first official US visit since her election which, Mr Bush joked, much like his own, was not a landslide win.

The two leaders discussed a range of subjects - from the Balkans and the Middle East to the Iraq war - which had strained relations between the US and Germany in recent years.

"We openly addressed that there sometimes have been differences of opinion, and I mentioned Guantanamo in this respect," Ms Merkel told the press conference afterwards.


by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

her election which, Mr Bush joked, much like his own, was not a landslide win.

I thought he had "earned political capital"? I thought the whole right was crowing about their smashing victory? WTF?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, perhaps he doesn't believe all the lies he tells...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Deutsche Welle: Bush and Merkel Hail New Chapter in US-German Relations

German Chancellor Angela Merkel emerged from talks with President George W. Bush in Washington Friday to say that US-German relations were back on track and that they shared common ground on many issues, including Iran.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel broached the delicate subjects of the United States' prison at Guantanamo Bay and Iran's nuclear program during discussions with US President George W. Bush on Friday. According to Bush, the two spent some 45 minutes along together in the White House Oval Office.

Chancellor Merkel told the assembled press at the joint press conference after the talks that Germany would not be intimidated by Iran. She added that Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust were "totally unacceptable."

Western countries "will not be intimidated" by Iran's decision to go ahead with its nuclear program, Merkel said Friday at a press conference with US President George W. Bush.

"It's essential, we feel, that the EU-3 (Britain, France and
Germany), together with the United States, take a common position here, become active," Merkel said following her first official meeting with Bush as German chancellor.

"We will not be intimidated by any country such as Iran," she
vowed, adding that it was essential to persuade as many countries as possible to speak with one voice on the issue.

Both leaders, however, expressed a desire to follow a diplomatic course in an attempt to come to a solution. "We spent some time talking about the Iranian issue and the desire to solve this issue diplomatically -- by working together," Bush said.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dawn: Romania struggles with adoption dilemmas

BUCHAREST: Theodor's mother abandoned him in hospital soon after giving birth. Three years later, the dark-haired boy with a shy smile is living with a foster mother in a bare apartment in Bucharest, still waiting to be adopted.

Theodor's story, and the tales of tens of thousands of other Romanian orphans, pull at the heart-strings in a country where adoption and child care were crippled and corrupted by years of dictatorship and the graft-tainted society it spawned.

Romania, which hopes to join the European Union next year, has taken radical steps to clean up its act, eager to banish the haunting images of vast, filthy orphanages that were exposed to the world after the 1989 fall of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

But a 2005 ban on foreign adoptions has drawn criticism as well as praise. More heartache ensued as hopeful couples found their efforts to adopt cut off during a three-year moratorium that preceded last year's ban.

And while Theodor faces no risk of being sold to the highest bidder as was the case in the adoption industry for years after Ceausescu's fall, he is unlikely to find a permanent home.

Many Romanians are too poor to adopt a child, and Theodor is also a Gypsy, who often face discrimination.

"I would prefer for him to be adopted by a good family, and if he isn't, I will raise him as my own," says Maria Moise, Theodor's foster mother who is paid around $130 a month to look after him, plus money for food and toiletries.

"But I can't adopt him, I can't afford it.

by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:57:19 PM EST
BBC: Polygamy proposal for Chechen men

Chechnya has lost so many men to war that survivors should be legally allowed to take several wives, acting Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov has said.

Speaking on Russian radio, the pro-Moscow leader said this was "necessary for Chechnya because we have war - we have more women than men".

He was backed by Russian parliamentary deputy speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Russian law restricts citizens to one marriage, but Islamic custom allows a man to take up to four wives.

'No interference

Mr Kadyrov told Ekho Moskvy radio that women in the Russian republic outnumbered men by 10%, and that a man should be able to choose how many wives he had without the state getting involved.

"Every man decides for himself how he should live. He is the boss, he decides, I am sure that his personal life will not be interfered with," he said.

Mr Zhirinovsky, who is the leader of the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR), said polygamy should be applied across Russia "because we have 10 million unmarried women".


by Fran on Fri Jan 13th, 2006 at 11:59:16 PM EST
Note: Kadyrov has the backing of the Kremlin.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you mean to imply the Kremlin has an interest in this policy, or was it just informational?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just informational, and to say that this Kadyrov is the de facto ruler of Chechnya on behalf of Russia. They know he is a crazy fucker, and a dangerous one (everybody is terrified of the kadyrovtsy, gangs of young men that basically are out of control and go rape, pillage and kill with impunity), but they still let him in control, because the alternatives (chaos or independentist Chechens) are even worse.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:40:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Independent: Strasbourg: The heart of Europe

WHERE?

On France's eastern border, Strasbourg came into being as a Roman military outpost located on a small island between two branches of the Ill river, a couple of miles from the wider Rhine. Over the centuries, the region was shunted back and forth between French and German control. Strasbourg's architecture and cultural life now display an intriguing mix of modern French influence and traditional Alsatian roots, overlaid with a certain international flavour.

This elegant city prides itself on its post-war vocation as home to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, and on its well-deserved status as a World Heritage site. Its wines and hearty dishes have a distinctive place in the patchwork of French regional cuisine.

...
WHY?

Quite simply, the Alsatian capital is a superb place to spend a weekend. The island at its heart is surrounded by a shimmering labyrinth of canals, linked by a variety of camel-back stone bridges, and shelters dozens of well-preserved medieval and Renaissance buildings. Away from the centre, the student hangouts of the Krutenau area and the neo-classical Prussian architecture of the "German district" have their own attractions. Predictably enough for the capital of a renowned wine-growing region, the city's restaurants set themselves high gastronomic standards.

...
WHAT?

No visit to this city is complete without popping into the Cathédrale Notre-Dame: a red-stone Gothic masterpiece, its unmistakable single spire towers over the roofs of the Old Town, while its stark silhouette, visible from miles around, is softened by lace-like stonework, leering gargoyles and dozens of statues depicting historical and Biblical characters. On sunny days, the stained-glass windows gleam with colour.

An elaborate astronomical clock chimes "noon" at 12.30pm each day, when figurines of the 12 apostles appear in parade. The 330 steps to the platform are not for the faint-hearted, but on a clear day the views across to the Black Forest and Vosges are their own reward. Also on the cathedral square, the Maison Kammerzell's ornately carved wooden façade hides painted stone arches under which merchants once sold their goods.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:05:54 AM EST
Yes, I can only heartily recommend Strasbourg as a destination for a week-end or more. it's a great place.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not that you're biased or anything ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the city I re-discovered as an adult has little to do with the one I lived in as a kid going to school. I left when I was 18, and then came as a semi-tourist (for week-ends or short term stays) - although of course with the familiarity of my childhood's apartment and (some of) the geography of the place.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Definitely. If anyone goes visiting, spare an hour or two for a boat roundtrip - the best way of sight-seeing.

Oh, and travel by the fine new tramway! :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a beautiful city and I love the local pizzas. While you're there it is worth visiting a few of the wine villages and going to Colmar (a half hour drive to the south) which is also beautiful and happens to have what is perhaps the most stunning piece of medieval art around in Grunwald's Isenheim Crucifixion (link is to a photo of the main panel, the photo does not do it justice, in real life it is simply stunning. For a series of photos, including both detail closeups and the various panels, go to this link - at the bottom you have the links to the other panels.
by MarekNYC on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The News: EU ministers move to limit illegal immigration

VIENNA: European ministers moved on Friday to harmonise asylum laws to reduce the number of refugees trying to enter the EU and pledged to strengthen cooperation on deporting illegal immigrants.

The justice and interior ministers, meeting informally for two days in Vienna, studied forward-looking ways to discourage would-be immigrants and asylum seekers from leaving their home countries. But they refused to back away from more controversial and repressive measures in use like the forced repatriation of illegal immigrants on charter flights.

One of the flaws in the current system is the vast differences between the bloc's 25 member states on who deserves to be granted refugee status.

According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Austria, hosting the talks as the current EU president, recognised more than 50 per cent of asylum seekers as refugees in 2004 compared to only 0.3 per cent in Greece.

"It is absurd and counter-productive if asylum seekers can get a different answer depending on what country of the Union they are in," French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told his counterparts.

"It's not only illogical; this difference can create migratory movements between our countries."

EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini said the lack of common standards had sparked "asylum shopping, due to the huge differences in member states and we should absolutely overcome this situation."

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:08:14 AM EST
Fucking Fortress Europe.

Sorry but this disgusts me to no end. This utter hypocrisy and ignorance towards asylum seekers. And the comfortable cluelessness of the wide masses and their inability to see the situation from the refugee's point of view. My defining experience on this was when I was a foreigner in then West Germany, under the Kohl government - and now we are heading back to the same disgusting right-winger attitude.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. It is shameless of The News to mention illegal immigration in the headline when all the article talks about is curbing asylum applications.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:31:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair, the idea on an harmonisation of the standards between the countries is not silly per se. The scandal is that thye only want to "harmonise it" to the toughest, most heartless standard.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ABC News.au:  Bush urges peaceful Iran resolution

US President George Bush says he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel want to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear intentions by diplomatic means.

Their joint stance follows earlier comments by the Iranian President that Iran will not back down over its decision to restart its nuclear program.

Mrs Merkel is making her first official visit to Washington.

Mr Bush has repeated the American belief Iran wants to use what it says is a civilian energy program to build nuclear weapons.

"Countries such as ours have an obligation to step up, working together sending a common message to the Iranians that their behaviour - trying to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon or using the guise of the civilian nuclear weapon program to get the know-how to develop a nuclear weapon - is unacceptable," he said.

He says united action on Iran is essential.

"We've got an important job ahead of us to work on key issues like Iran," he said.

"We spent some time talking about the Iranian issue and the desire to solve this issue diplomatically by working together."

Mrs Merkel says says recent comments by Mr Ahmadinejad questioning Israel's right to exist and saying the Holocaust never happened are totally unacceptable.

"It's essential, we feel, that the EU [European Union], together with the United States, take a common position here, become active that we try to persuade as many countries as possible to align themselves with us," she said.

"We will certainly not be intimidated by any country such as Iran."

Earlier, Mrs Merkel said she felt Iran had crossed "the red line" by resuming its nuclear activities.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack says he hopes the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UN Security Council will take action against Iran.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:15:26 AM EST
Deutsche Welle: Opinion: Sanctions Will Hurt Europe More Than Iran

Germany, France and Britain may refer Iran to the UN Security Council for nuclear breaches. But rather than solving the problem, the tactic creates new difficulties, says Deutsche Welle's Peter Philipp.

The simmering anger in Berlin, London and Paris in the last few days was an indication that Iran's resumption of research into nuclear fuel -- particularly at the highly controversial Natan enrichment plant -- would not be without a drastic reaction.

But the EU troika foreign ministers' decision to refer Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and if necessary haul it before the UN Security Council, doesn't do justice to the expectations. Instead, it's akin to making a mountain of a molehill.

New, bigger headaches?

The Europeans have once again shown they aren't in a position to solve international problems. In this case, they have not only failed to solve the problem, but perhaps also created the basis for new and bigger ones.

Should the US get its way and push through the imposition of sanctions on Iran in the UN Security Council, people in Washington as well as in Brussels, as indeed elsewhere in Europe, are well aware that such sanctions -- no matter how they are formulated -- aren't an effective way of getting a country "on the right course."

It didn't work in Iraq or in Cuba and it has an even slimmer chance of working in Iran.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why will it hurt Europe? How is it showing that Europe is not in a position to solve international problems? What a stupid, stupid comment. How do you solve this particular problem in any other way? Go bomb Iran, maybe?

As to sanctions, they did not work in Cuba because they give legitimacy to Castro (and the same might happen in Iran), but they did work in Iraq with regards to the narrower objective of stopping nuclear proliferation, which is the goal today with Iran.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I really think the EU-3 will be hard pressed to show exactly where Iran has run afoul of its NPT commitments.

By the way, what's this EU-3 business about anyway? Isn't the EU supposed to have a common Foreign and Security Policy?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair, the Europeans acknowledge that, but have pointed out that there are ways to stay within the NPT that arouse less suspicions that you are also trying to get your hands on a nuclear bomb. If your only intention is to get power, then a light water reactor will do the trick, and cannot be used to produce weapons-grade mateiral; Iran insisting on a heavy-water reactor, which is legal under the NPT but also allows to build up the weapons-grade material is a legitimate reason for suspicion.

I think the EU-3 have the support of the EU in this. Until there is a real European diplomatic corps, it's hard to see this done differently, and at least like that you have a coordinated European position.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that insisting on Uranium enrichment is an unnecessary provocation.

Actually, heavy water reactors are needed in order to use natural (non-enriched) uranium as nuclear fuel.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Deutsche Welle: Experts: UN Unlikely to Agree on Tough Sanctions for Iran

Hauling Iran before the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions is unlikely to lead to crippling sanctions against Tehran. The international community still prefers pursuing negotiations, experts say.

Responding to Iran's decision to resume sensitive nuclear fuel work, Europe's three major powers on Thursday asked for an emergency meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer the issue to the UN Security Council, which could slap sanctions.

"We believe the time has now come for the Security Council to become involved to reinforce the authority of IAEA resolutions," the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, who have been trying to coax Iran into renouncing a nuclear weapons capability, said in Berlin.

US Middle East experts interviewed dismiss the prospects of biting sanctions on Iran.

Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, felt that the Europeans would be reluctant to slap tough sanctions against Tehran.

"But there are other things you may be able to do: diplomatic sanctions, reducing the size of Iranian representatives abroad, reducing the size of the embassies, maybe barring some transfers of technology," he said.

"There are things you can do along the margins, which can be not very substantial but do have some symbolic importance at least."

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sydney Morning Herald: Greenhouse battle handed to industry

THE six governments responsible for nearly half the world's greenhouse gas emissions will rely on industry to shoulder most of the burden of offsetting global warming.

Ministers from Australia, the United States, Japan, China, South Korea and India yesterday formed eight groups to research ways to reduce emissions but will not report back for at least a year on exactly how that will be done.

No targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions were set and no timetable for how quickly emissions need to be lowered was acknowledged at the end of the first meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

Instead, a communique emphasised the need to continue using fossil fuels such as coal for the bulk of their countries' energy requirements.

"We recognise that fossil fuels underpin our economies and will be an enduring reality for our lifetimes and beyond," the communique said. "It is therefore critical that we work together to develop, demonstrate and implement cleaner and lower emissions technologies that allow for the continued economic use of fossil fuels while addressing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions."

Business will be expected to do most of the work, with the Australian Government promising to spend $100 million over five years and the US setting aside a one-off amount of $US52 million ($69 million).


by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:16:27 AM EST

...will rely on industry to shoulder most of the burden of offsetting global warming.

No, that's a highly misleading sentence. They will rely on industry taking the initiative on its own against global climate change.

Kyoto, which these countries have not signed, will rely on industry to shoulder most of the burden of offsetting global warming, as it should be.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So the difference must be that Kyoto is illiberal and big government.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could say that. The difference is that Kyoto imposes a compulsory cost on business (which will of course be passed on to customers, as all costs are) instead of a "voluntary" one.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a snark, the "voluntary" ones just won't happen.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:12:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know. Pedantic seriousness is the deadliest weapon against snark. ;-)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 09:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Guardian: A bias towards boys is unbalancing Asia

Counting up the numbers of boys and girls in a country has never been so troublesome. On Monday the medical journal the Lancet published a report estimating that prenatal selection and selective abortion in India was likely to be causing half a million girls to be culled every year. Within 24 hours, the Indian medical association weighed in to dispute the Lancet's figures as out-of-date and exaggerated. The Indian government has made no formal statement, but is said to be incandescent with rage.

There are good reasons for all this sensitivity. The abnormally unbalanced gender ratios of some Asian countries - either due to abortion, sex-selective technologies such as ultrasound or old-fashioned infanticide - have been the subject of academic controversy since the late 1980s. Just recently, however, they come to be cloaked in a more sinister hue. One of the latest growth areas in the academy is in "security demographics", where scholars are invited to predict the potentially dire implications of demographic change, and one of the most gloomy prognostications is rooted in what could happen when sex ratios spin out of kilter.

"Bare branches" is the Chinese term for the poor young men who are left with no prospect of finding a partner or starting a family. In their influential 2004 book of the same name, the American political scientists Valerie M Hudson and Andrea M den Boer argued that these men were an accident waiting to happen. The pair found evidence of a huge number of "missing females" in eight different Asian countries, but the vast majority were from India and China, where two-fifths of the world's population now live. In 1999, they noted, the Chinese academy of social sciences admitted that the birth-sex ratio in that country had reached 120 boys for every 100 girls, and that the number of surplus Chinese males was now 111 million.

These legions of surplus males, according to Hudson and Den Boer, are often poor or unemployed, and lack bargaining power in the market for marriage. The consequences of this vast demographic shift, according to the authors, could be dire. As economies turn bad, those surplus males are likely to generate crime and violence. The only way for countries to absorb the growing surfeit of young males, they argue, might be to amass huge armies and go to war to use up the excess men.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:18:50 AM EST
The environment and demographics drive society. Ideas and technology may offer sporatic shifts of these forces, but  the environment and demographics still rule. Stuck in our human-centered world, we now forget this. We forget it at our peril.

 

by gradinski chai on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The good thing is that these two countries are next to each other and can solve that problem without involving the rest of the world... Right?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You do know what institution is the accepted outlet for a surplus of sexually frustrated young males, don't you? Plus, both countries have nukes.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do indeed. All we should care about is that wars increase GDP. Right?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right: before, during and after!

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 04:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Teheran Times: Hungarian opposition attacks wild capitalism

BUDAPEST (Reuters) -- Hungary's Fidesz opposition party pledged it would protect ordinary people from the excesses of 'wild capitalism' if it was elected in a poll expected in Aprill or May.

Viktor Orban, leader of the right-of-center Fidesz Party and a former dissident, is promising more jobs and lower taxes to boost economic growth.

"We must put a brake on the wild capitalist thinking, which gathered new strength after 2002 (the last election)," Orban told a press conference on Thursday.

Orban says that the economy under the ruling Socialists favors the rich and is "immoral".

"In today's Hungary, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer," he said.

The leader of Fidesz has pushed his party from its radical liberal roots to the right-of-centre and based its policies on family values and national identity.

Unemployment in Hungary is 7.2 percent, low compared with more than 17 percent in Poland, but there are huge variations across the country and the figure is 22 percent for 15-24 year olds, a key voter base for Fidesz.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:25:06 AM EST
The leader of Fidesz has pushed his party from its radical liberal roots to the right-of-centre and based its policies on family values and national identity.

That was long ago - as can be seen from the article too, now they promise everything to everyone. (Lower taxes and increase subsidies and help the poor, yeah that'll work.) Presently, they switch from quasi-hard-left criticism of the Socialist government to a 'neoclassical' criticism of the budget deficit with ease. (Not that the Socialists are any better.) As for how promises will convert to policies, hard to say. When they were last in, as I have written in my Hungary diearies, they used to have a give-more-to-rich-families-so-that they'll-have-more-kids policy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Independent: Shop until they drop: UK stores shocked by conditions in their Chinese factories

Clothes and toys on sale in Britain's high streets are made by Chinese workers forced to endure illegal, exhausting and dangerous conditions, according to a new study. It will increase the pressure on retailers to monitor the conditions in which their products are made.

A three-year investigation into booming export factories for companies such as Marks & Spencer and Ikea discovered the human cost of China's "economic miracle". It found an army of powerless rural migrants toiling up to 14 hours a day, almost every day. Many were allowed just one day off a month and paid less than £50 a month for shifts that breached Chinese law and International Labour Organisation rules. Despite evidence of the shocking working conditions, cheap clothes, toys and increasingly electronic goods from the sweatshops are on sale in British shops with household names, including those with ethical buying policies.

Ethical trading consultants for Impactt, which works with businesses to improve their social impact around the world, were allowed into 100 factories supplying 11 British retailers.

They found that "ethical audits" - the conventional method of checking conditions - were ineffective because of falsification of records. Instead, working hours were cut by improving efficiency, said their report, Changing Over Time, sponsored by the Co-operative Insurance Society. But even these reduced working hours still exceeded Chinese labour limits, said Rosey Hurst, Impactt's director. She added: "What has surprised and depressed us since 1998 when we started working in China is that all the efforts of the ... companies have made very little difference to the working standards. The response by Chinese factories is to work out how better to cook the books."

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:29:28 AM EST
Independent: How to be an ethical shopper

Consumers have immense power to change companies, which respond to boycotts and other protests.

The US clothing giant Gap acquired such a reputation for sweatshop labour that it opened its supply chain to scrutiny and published the results. So how can you be sure your money does not go into the pockets of multinationals who are beneficiaries of China's sweatshops?

Buying Fairtrade is one way of ensuring goods have been made under acceptable conditions, and many clothes retailers specialising in such goods can be found on the Web. If you shop on the high street, the unfortunate truth is that Chinese products are highly likely to have been made in poor, if not atrocious, conditions. You could choose not to buy them.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I lived in SL, we used to pass some of the Marks & Spencer factories on the way to our discrete beach hangout in the South near Galle. These were often built in "tax-free business enclaves", designed by the government as incentives for foreign investors (enclaves that would be, say, 3km2, and were spread out in various places).

I once met a guy who worked in one of those factories. He earned 2000 something rupees a month (that's what ... maximum 40 euros), and obviously couldn't afford a single one of the things he helped produce. But it was no sweat shop,  which would be tough to find in SL anyhow, seeing as how socialist the country is. But what a lousy pay ... and even without being officially a sweat shop, a lot of the dehumanizing conditions were there ... like for some employees having to live in a bunk-like room with 10 other employees right next to the factory because your home is 50km away and you can't afford another lodging etc etc

So this guy, was asking me whether he should go the Arab Emirates or not, as he had had a job offer from the official "send our people to be slaves in the Middle East" government agency, to be some menial job-doer there. He told me he would be paid 12000 rupees a month, but wouldn't be allowed to come back for 2 years, and his wife was about to give birth to their second infant. Dilemna ... he was hesitating.

---

Ok, so ... on the one hand there are those who will say that companies like M & S create income and employment in the countries in which they operate, then on the other hand you just know that these guys are paying peanuts ...

What do we do? I know that since I don't know what to do, I at least decided not to buy stuff from Marks & Spencer ... then again it's not like I ever bought stuff from them anyhow. The only thing I ever bought there was scones, when this girlfriend of mine would beg me to buy scones (some 12 years ago) for breakfast.

by Alex in Toulouse on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:51:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know the standard response by many in the big business has always been "if you increase productivity, the wages will go up as well". Given this non-answer, we can try to figure whether or not someone who makes 40 bucks a month really has only 2% of productivity of someone making 2000 bucks. It's bullshit. Even if the productivity is not up to speed in many areas, it is due to labor intensive vs. capital intensive types of work. Additionally, big business pays little simply because it can, because nothing else is enforced, and because developing countries are afraid to scare these investors off. TO them, employment at minimum wage or below is better than no employment. How to solve that dilemma is a big challenge.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 01:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
WaPo: U.S. Airstrike Targets Al Qaeda's Zawahiri

Ayman Zawahiri, the second-ranking al Qaeda leader and chief deputy to Osama bin Laden, was targeted by a deadly U.S. missile strike on a compound inside Pakistan yesterday, but U.S. intelligence could not confirm whether he was killed, according to U.S. sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Acting on sensitive intelligence describing the whereabouts of Zawahiri and other top al Qaeda figures, the CIA ordered the airstrike by a Predator drone that fired an air-to-ground missile at the compound, nestled on the border with Afghanistan. The sources said more than a dozen people may have died in the attack. It was too early to confirm the identities of the dead, but U.S. military officials said Zawahiri may be among them.

bold added by me.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 12:59:45 AM EST
Yeah.

And if we can trust the Panorama account of that earlier assassination attempt in the first phase of the Iraq war, i.e. that the reason to bomb was merely infor that a couple of black Mercedes's parked outside a building, just imagine the quality of the info these murder of these 20 people was based on.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 04:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yahoo/Reuters: Saddam trial judge plans to quit

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - The chief judge in the trial of     Saddam Hussein plans to step down, a source close to the judge told Reuters on Friday, in a development that could throw an already turbulent process into further disarray.

"He wants to withdraw," the source said of Rizgar Amin, who is to preside over the next hearing on January 24. "He will oversee the next sitting and then announce his reasons for withdrawing."

Asked why the Kurdish judge, based in the northern city of Sulaimaniya, wanted to pull out of a trial that has made his face familiar around the world during long days of television coverage, he would say only: "It is too difficult."

The killing of two defense lawyers has already highlighted problems with the process in a country mired in a virtual civil war that pits Saddam's fellow minority Sunni Arabs against a U.S.-backed government run by Shi'ite Muslims and ethnic Kurds intent on hanging a man they say massacred their peoples.

Kidnapping and murder have become commonplace and human rights groups have questioned the wisdom of pushing ahead with a trial in Baghdad rather than an international process in The Hague or elsewhere.

by Fran on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 01:12:09 AM EST
I can't help but think that Buddhism is escapist and reactionnary... It is hard to avoid the implication that discontent with the social order is the result of misplaced wishes and urges... If only the downtrodden learned to think pure thoughts all would be well...

Not very different from the very different religious justification for the Feudal order in medieval Europe.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 08:27:21 AM EST
Well, to a degree that is a fair assessment. Just about all religions so far have tended to have a heavy escapist and reactionary element.

On the other hand, the Buddhist reaction that material forces are not the root of happiness appears to be accurate as far as modern psychology tells us. That is not without value.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 02:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 Fran: Here is something from neuroscience:

 Your mind/thoughts are originally the input of your

 mom/family/cultural environment and values.

 Non-"humanly"constructed minds
 have been observed:

 I have studied various case histories of children raised by animals especially wolves. They really have no "mind". They have no language etc. They cannot survive in societies. The general background of people
is common;and that is the reason people get along somehow. "Freedom" and "individuality"are very frail trees indeed. The construction of an absolutely original self is impossible. That piece which is not common (owing to the different timelines of each person) is that which gives you your uniqueness.
Does "freedom of the will" exist really?
Do you determine your life path?
Answer: Yes, but in a very specific form.

by montrealer on Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 05:47:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]