170 DEAD IN FIRES NOW

Israelis vote with Livni, Netanyahu in close race By STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 10, 10:10 am ET

JERUSALEM – The two front-runners in the race to rule Israel urged voters to head to the polls Tuesday to tip the scales in a surprisingly tight general election whose outcome could determine the course of Mideast peace negotiations.Opinion polls were long predicting a decisive victory for the hard-line Likud Party, headed by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But new polls released over the weekend showed the Kadima Party, led by moderate Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, closing the gap.

After casting her vote at a Tel Aviv polling station, Livni called on Israelis to do the same despite stormy weather. I have just done what I want every citizen in Israel to do — first of all to get out of the house, rain or no rain, cold or hot, go out, go to the polling station, go into the booth, close your eyes, and vote, Livni said.Despite initial concerns that the weather could keep voters home, turnout by mid-afternoon was on par with previous elections, according to the Central Election Committee.Livni was one of the architects of Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last month and has been striving to present an image of herself as tough but sensible.Netanyahu is portraying himself as the candidate best equipped to deal with the threats Israel faces — Hamas militants in Gaza, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, and behind them an Iranian regime Israel believes is intent on developing nuclear weapons.I will do everything so that our enemies won't provoke us, won't think we're weak, won't rain down ... their rockets, he told reporters in the southern city of Beersheba, which was hit by rockets from Gaza during the fighting there. They'll know that in Israel there's a different government, a strong prime minister who will answer with a crushing response to any attack on us.Despite the narrow gap between Livni and Netanyahu, polls have predicted that voters will take a sharp turn to the right and elect a parliament dominated by hard-line parties opposed to territorial concessions. That would make it difficult for Livni to form a government even if she wins.

The national mood is at least partially linked to the rocket fire from Gaza that sparked Israel's recent offensive there, and to a sense among Israelis that territorial withdrawals like the country's 2005 Gaza pullout have only brought more violence.Rami Golan, 60, a chef in Jerusalem, said Israel needed a strong government.
We need a strong man who knows what he wants to do. We need someone who will keep us safe, Golan said. He had yet to decide who to vote for, he said. With 33 parties running in the election, polls over the weekend showed more than 15 percent of Israelis still undecided.Netanyahu opposes ceding land to the Palestinians and favors allowing Israeli settlements in the West Bank to expand, two points that are likely to put him on a collision course with the new U.S. administration. Livni, who hopes to become the first woman to lead Israel in 35 years, has served as chief negotiator with the Palestinians and says a West Bank withdrawal is necessary for Israel's own security.Neither is seen getting more than 30 seats in the 120-seat parliament, however, meaning the winner will have to form a coalition with smaller parties. A fractious alliance unable to make difficult decisions could further complicate efforts to create a Palestinian state and pose a challenge to President Barack Obama, who has said he will become aggressively involved in pursuing Mideast peace.In one indication of current anti-Arab sentiment in Israel, the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party has seen its support surge in the lead-up to the election with a campaign demanding that Israeli Arabs, one-fifth of Israel's population, sign a loyalty pledge or lose their citizenship. The polls suggest the party could become the third-largest faction in parliament and play the role of kingmaker in the post-election coalition bargaining.Five Israeli Arabs were arrested after throwing stones and scuffling with police when a hard-line Jewish candidate provocatively arrived in the Arab town of Umm el-Fahm to serve as an election observer, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. The candidate was escorted out of the town and there were no injuries, he said.The Israeli military announced a closure of the West Bank, barring Palestinians from entering Israel except for urgent medical treatment. Such closures are routine during elections and religious festivals, when Israelis gather in public places and present a potential target for militant attacks.Security officials are particularly wary of the possibility of an attack seeking to avenge Israel's Gaza campaign, which ended Jan. 18. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed, according to Gaza health officials, and 13 Israelis also died in the offensive, meant to halt militant rocket fire aimed at southern Israel.

Exit polls were expected soon after the polls close, with the first official results to be announced before dawn Wednesday. If the hawkish Netanyahu garners the most votes, he will have to choose whether to form a coalition with hard-line parties or reach out to centrists like Livni. A partnership with moderate parties like Livni's Kadima and Labor, headed by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, might push Netanyahu toward the middle, but it is unlikely he would agree to uproot Jewish settlements or cede partial control of Jerusalem — both necessary for peace with the Palestinians. What Israelis want most from this election is quiet, said Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies in Jerusalem. Israelis are overwhelmed by security pressures, by fear of the future, by a sense of unworthy leadership. Israelis look at the Middle East and feel the walls coming in, there are terrorist enclaves on our borders and we don't seem to have answers, he said. We just fought a war that we won and even that war has not stopped the missiles from falling. So Israelis look around and say, No one can deliver peace, no one can deliver security, who can we depend on?

ISRAELI ELECTIONS TODAY Israel holds tight election contest after Gaza war By Allyn Fisher-Ilan FEB 9,09

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israelis vote on Tuesday in a parliamentary election held after a Gaza offensive, with polls showing rightist Benjamin Netanyahu and centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni locked in a race too close to call.Some 5.3 million eligible voters casting ballots in more than 9,000 schools and community centers nationwide stand to decide whether U.S.-backed peacemaking which Livni's Kadima party supports, or Netanyahu's tougher stance, will prevail.Likud party leader Netanyahu, once a clear frontrunner in opinion polls, has lost ground to Livni since the 22-day war last month in which 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed, locking the two in a statistical dead heat.Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a third prominent candidate, trails both Netanyahu and Livni, though his poll numbers have more than doubled since the Gaza war that ended with each side calling a truce on January 18.The race could be determined by how many votes the smaller parties garner or the ballots of 10-to-15 percent of as yet undecided voters, pollsters said.The trend we've seen the last few days indicates a very close battle, said pollster Rafi Smith of the Smith Research Center. No one has jumped ahead and it's tough to call.

Ultra-rightist Avigdor Lieberman, a potential spoiler for Netanyahu, has seen his popularity soar since the war that has focused public interest in the campaign on security concerns.Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party pledges to get tougher with Palestinians, including Israeli Arab citizens and supports Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank.Israelis vote by party, and parliament seats are allocated by proportional representation to national party lists. The party garnering the most votes traditionally has its leader designated to form a government or become prime minister.

WEEKS TO BUILD A COALITION

The political haggling involved in forming a new government could take weeks. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the outgoing leader who quit in a corruption probe in September, would stay on as caretaker premier until a new cabinet is sworn in.Livni, 50, formerly of the Mossad, would become the first female prime minister since Golda Meir in the 1970s. Netanyahu, 59, a former finance minister, and Barak, 66, a former general, have also served previously as premiers.As foreign minister Livni has led Western-backed peace talks with Palestinians that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama wants to resume, but have thus far failed to yield a desired two-state solution. Netanyahu has indicated he would set tougher terms for any talks.

Underscoring the enduring conflict, Israel has clamped a closure on the occupied West Bank, denying Palestinians entry to the country for the duration of the election, the army said. Police were deploying thousands nationwide for extra security.The Israeli campaign has been duller than past contests, with some blaming this on the fighting in Gaza including militant rocket fire at Israel which put rallies on hold for several weeks and dampened enthusiasm.Israeli President Shimon Peres accused the candidates of failing to address the country's burning issues in the campaign in which candidates did not hold a single debate.Yitzhak Galnoor, a political scientist, said Israelis were largely bored by the campaign because it was filled with slogans bereft of any content.(Additional reporting by Ari Rabinovitch; Editing by Michael Roddy)

Israeli parties in last-ditch scramble for votes by Yana Dlugy– Mon Feb 9, 3:45 pm ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israeli candidates scrambled to win over a record number of undecided voters on Monday, the eve of a tight parliamentary election dominated by the meteoric rise of an ultra-nationalist party.The centrist Kadima party and its right-wing rival Likud struggled to woo undecided voters, with polls showing them running neck-and-neck in a race that could have a major impact on Middle East peacemaking.Avigdor Lieberman, a former bouncer who has vowed to hit Israel's enemies with an iron fist, was poised to be crowned kingmaker with his party projected to become the third largest in parliament.Final opinion polls published before Tuesday's vote showed the governing Kadima closing the gap on Likud to just a few seats, filling the sails of the governing centrist party that had been trailing in previous surveys.With the number of undecided voters at a record high of 20 percent, party leaders are battling it out for every vote as opinion polls gave the Likud faction of former hardline premier Benjamin Netanyahu 25 to 27 seats in parliament, and Kadima 23 to 25.Victory is within reach, said Foreign Minister and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni who is bidding to become the second woman prime minister in Israeli history.If Kadima gets just one mandate more than Likud, we will be able to form a governing coalition as we are a centrist party that can bring together the right and the left, she told public radio.

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said in Warsaw he was ready to cooperate with any new Israeli government, although peace talks have been at a dead end since Israel's war on Gaza.In the complex world of Israeli politics, the person the president will charge with forming a coalition is not automatically the one who wins the most votes, but the one who has the best chance of cobbling together a governing coalition of at least 61 seats in the 120-member parliament.Netanyahu looks likely to win the most backing for a coalition.Despite the anticipated strong showing by right-wing parties, he has made it clear he would rather have a broad coalition that would include Kadima and the left-of-centre Labour party of Defence Minister Ehud Barak.A narrow government would not be in a position to face the challenges posed by the threat of a nuclear Iran, Hamas, rocket fire and the economic crisis, Netanyahu said on Sunday.But evidently worried about the last-minute drop in support, he has gone all out to show off his credentials as a security hardliner.On Monday he toured the Golan Heights, vowing never to cede the territory that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 war and annexed in 1981.Forecasters have warned of heavy rains and gusty winds for Tuesday, predicting the foulest electoral weather in the 60-year history of the Jewish state, which could depress turnout to a historic low.The Israel army announced that it would impose a 24-hour polling day closure on the occupied West Bank.Meanwhile, Lieberman was relishing opinion polls that showed Yisrael Beitenu would knock the veteran Labour party to its worst-ever showing of fourth place.Start getting used to this, and start learning these names, the Maariv daily quoted Lieberman as telling reporters as he pointed to party members at an election rally on Sunday. Support for Lieberman has swelled in past weeks in the wake of the Gaza war, as his tough stances on Israeli Arabs and Hamas found fertile ground with voters concerned with security and distrustful of past politicians.

Lieberman is the scarecrow that panic-stricken Israelis want to place in the political cornfield in the hope that the Arabs are crows: that they will... take fright, wrote a columnist in the mass-selling Yediot Aharonot. Lieberman -- who in the past has called for executing Israeli Arab MPs who have had dealings with the Hamas movement that rules Gaza -- has made No Citizenship Without Loyalty a central theme of his campaign. But President Shimon Peres told public radio he was concerned about any incitement to violence against one part of the electorate. Arabs, like all the citizens of the country, have the same rights and duties as everyone else.

DANIEL 7:23-24
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast(THE EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADE BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:(10 NATIONS) and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(BE HEAD OF 3 KINGS OR NATIONS).

German ministers defend EU treaty in court
HONOR MAHONY Today FEB 10,09 @ 17:26 CET

Two senior ministers from the German government on Tuesday (10 February) defended the EU's Lisbon Treaty at a court hearing on whether the document is unconstitutional

Foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier rejected claims that the treaty is anti-democratic and risks undermining the power of national parliaments.The Treaty of Lisbon expressly strengthens the democratic fundamentals of the European Union, said Mr Steinmeier and added that National parliaments would in the future be completely involved in the European law-making process.Wolfgang Schaeuble, interior minister, said: The treaty does not encroach upon Germany's sovereignty.He argued, according to Germany's Focus Magazine that EU member states will remain masters of the treaties, even after the Reform Treaty goes into force.The two-day hearing before Germany's highest court is crucial to the fate of the Lisbon Treaty across the EU as all member states need to approve the text for it to go into place.The court is looking into a complaint by German conservative MP Peter Gauweiler and several left wing deputies that the treaty undermines Germany's constitution.Mr Gauweiler says that a decision taken by the country's parliament - Bundestag - can subsequently be overturned at EU level if the European Commission decides to propose a law on a similar issue.An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes that some of the judges at today's hearing consider this process to be the most important they have ever worked on. It says that the process is about whether Germany will lose its statehood under the Lisbon Treaty and whether a European Union under the Lisbon Treaty is something that is compatible with Germany's constitution.The court's judgement is expected in two to three months and will be keenly awaited around Europe.Aside from Germany, Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic have not signed off the treaty.

Nordic countries to pool troops and intelligence
VALENTINA POP 09.02.2009 @ 18:10 CET

EUOBSERVER/BRUSSELS – The Nordic countries - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland - could pool military forces, maritime monitoring and satellite surveillance, a report commissioned by the five foreign ministers says.Drafted by former Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg, the study out on Monday (9 February) puts forward 13 proposals to be endorsed at a Nordic foreign ministers meeting in Reykjavik in April.All Nordic ministers welcomed the report, Urdur Gunnarsdottir, press officer with the Icelandic ministry of foreign affairs told the EUobserver. Out of the five countries, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are EU members. Denmark is also in NATO, with Sweden eyeing membership. Norway and Iceland meanwhile are in NATO but not in the EU.The report suggests the establishment of a common task force to include both civilian and military personnel, deployable under UN or EU missions abroad.Pooling strategic airlift and establishing common amphibious unit are mentioned, as well as a common maritime response force, consisting of the countries' coast guards.With the accelerated melting of the ice cap and a projected increase in traffic for oil and gas transport, the five countries are also advised to establish a monitoring and early warning system in the Nordic sea areas. The system should in principle be civilian and designed for tasks such as monitoring the marine environment and pollution and monitoring of civilian traffic, the Stoltenberg paper says. The system should have two pillars, one for the Baltic Sea (BalticWatch) and one for the North Atlantic, parts of the Arctic Ocean and the Barents Sea (BarentsWatch), under a common overall system.Further proposals include a common satelite system, a resource network to help against cyber attacks and a disaster response unit.

The Stoltenberg blueprint is not likely to shape the Swedish EU presidency, a Swedish official told the EUobserver under condition of anonymity. But the report should be seen as a good housekeeping effort between Nordic countries with a clear economic drive, he said. The official didn't expect resistance from the EU or NATO on the issue, citing the EU's Nordic battlegroup (involving non-EU member Norway) as a precedent for such regional initiatives.

Air protection for Iceland

Ms Gunnarsdottir added that the Icelandic government particularly welcomed the idea of including non-NATO countries in the alliance's efforts to oversee Iceland's airspace, after the US withdrew its troops from its Icelandic base in 2006.The Nordic countries should take on part of the responsibility for air surveillance and air patrolling over Iceland, the Stoltenberg paper proposes.In 2009, NATO members Denmark, Spain and the US will be deploying fighter planes to Iceland. Germany and the US have confirmed that they will deploy aircraft in 2010. Other countries that have shown an interest in taking part in air patrols include Canada, Italy and Poland.

Finland and Sweden to join NATO system

For their part, the Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish chiefs of defence recently proposed that non-NATO members Finland and Sweden should enter into an agreement on data exchange with NATO's air defence system. This process is already under way, and will make it possible for the Nordic countries to establish a common recognised air picture for Nordic airspace and to keep this updated, the Stoltenberg report reads.

Russia, Norway and Iceland already have a system for exchanging information that ensures continual monitoring of oil tankers sailing from Murmansk to the US via Norwegian coastal waters and Icelandic waters. The EU is seeking to promote integrated management of vulnerable sea areas. The EU is also concerned to put in place arrangements that will make it possible to control the Schengen external borders in the northern sea areas, the report reads.Cross-sectoral, cross-border Nordic co-operation on maritime monitoring would fit with the EU's long-term visions in this field, and an integrated Nordic system could be a pioneering project in Europe and the world as a whole. This could also open up possibilities for European-level funding,it adds.

And this seems to be the final revolution.Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. Mind control.

DAVID ICKE PART INTRO AT OXFORD UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_vmMjpvMY
DAVID ICKE PART 1-11 AT OXFORD UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMLk4N2FyBM
DAVID ICKE PART 2-11 AT OXFORD UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksNfja46rc
DAVID ICKE PART 3-11 WORLD TRADE BLOCKS,MICROCHIPPING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXS7NWgYORY
DAVID ICKE PART 4-11 BANKING POWER MANIPULATION(DICTATORSHIP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9J9ErIvQ6g
DAVID ICKE PART 5-11 GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS EMERGE,TOTALITARIAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULXEB_zhtk
DAVID ICKE PART 6-11 FREE TRADE,FEW CONTROL WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmUffLe8RG8
DAVID ICKE PART 7-11 911,FEAR MONGERING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWKOmrpZvE4
DAVID ICKE PART 8-11 INTERNATIONAL LAW REGULATIONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d8fOBWV_NM
DAVID ICKE PART 9-11 WAKEUP CALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixuTGJtGBKc
DAVID ICKE PART 10-11 DECEPTION,TV,MOVIES ETC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dscj-UnLLs
DAVID ICKE PART 11-11 POPULATION CONTROL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHW2qoAmm0Q

FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS

REVELATION 8:7
7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

AUDIO OF FIRE TALK ABC NEWS
http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2009/02/09/2486142.htm
VIDEO OF FIRE ABC NEWS
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/10/2486816.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/bushfires/

7 NEWS VIDEO FIRE RESULTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGfhNDJWyLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqd8kzFf0Hk

Australia wildfire death toll expected to pass 200 By TANALEE SMITH, Associated Press Writer FEB 10,09

HEALESVILLE, Australia – The high death toll from hundreds of wildfires across southeastern Australia has forced authorities to re-examine an accepted survival strategy when blazes threaten: Get out early or hunker down and fight.Many people waited too long and perished as they tried to escape the weekend infernos.People need to understand that a late departure is the most deadly, fire chief Paul Rees said.Recovery teams moving into burned out towns in Victoria state found charred bodies on roadsides and in wrecked cars — grim signs of futile attempts to flee the raging wildfires fed by 60 mph (100 kph) winds, record heat and drought. The number of deaths was expected to surpass 200, and a few fires were still burning.The clear evidence is that the most dangerous place to be is on the road, Rees, Victoria's country fire authority chief, told reporters Tuesday.The scale of the disaster has shocked a nation that endures deadly firestorms every few years.Authorities defended their preparations and actions during the fires that swept southeastern Australia on Saturday, saying the extreme weather conditions made catastrophe almost inevitable.

But they agreed that the stay and defend policy, under which homeowners remain to protect their properties from fire, needed to be reviewed.It is the application of that policy and a lack of an alternative that we need to work on, Rees said.

Evacuation is not mandatory in high-risk areas, and Australia's wildfire services largely comprise volunteers who lack the resources to protect every home.In Victoria, there is no formal alert system to warn of approaching wildfires, though the Country Fire Authority distributes advice and updates on its Web site and through radio broadcasts.One expert suggested Australia's shifting demographics could be partly to blame for the scale of the tragedy.Mark Adams of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center told Australian Broadcasting Corp. Television that many urbanites who moved to city outskirts have no experience with wildfires and rely wholly on the fire service for help. But families who have lived in the area for generations are prepared to battle blazes themselves, Adams said.Victoria state Premier John Brumby said he asked Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to consider setting up a national emergency fire warning system months ago.But officials agree that in the worst conditions, the direction and intensity of fires can change so quickly that sirens, e-mails and other warning systems are not effective.The wildfires outside Melbourne, Australia's second largest city, destroyed more than 750 homes, left 5,000people homeless, and burned 1,100 square miles (2,850 square kilometers) of land, the fire authority said.While the official death toll stood at 181 Tuesday evening, Brumby said there were an additional 50 bodies that the coroner had not identified and were not included in the official tally.This is going to be a significant number. It will exceed 200 deaths, he said. One elderly resident of Healesville, who asked not to be identified by name, said he escaped before the blaze engulfed his home but he lost two friends. It was too fast, said the white-bearded man, tears streaming down his cheek and his chin quivering. They had prepared their property but they wouldn't have wanted to die there.Healesville lies about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Melbourne. The Coleman family in Kinglake district, about 70miles (130 kilometers) from Melbourne, had a clear plan: 29-year-old Brooke took her two daughters to her parent's house about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away, while her husband Zack stayed to protect their home. But leaving her husband — a member of the town's fire guard — was terrifying.

I left Saturday evening with the fire at my heels, Brooke Coleman said. I could see the mountain on fire, and he was in it.Her husband saved their property, but some of their neighbors lost their homes. Coleman said the government should not dictate whether families stay or go. I don't think it's the government's fault so many died, she said. I think more education is needed for people's awareness of when to leave and when not to leave.Victoria's Police and Emergency Services Minister Bob Cameron said the state government would not consider making any policy changes until it received the recommendations of a commission investigating the disaster. Police suspect some fires were started by arsonists. Police Assistant Commissioner Dannye Moloney said a sketch would soon be released of a suspect in one of the fires, which killed 21 people. Of Australia's estimated 60,000 fires in forests and other vegetation each year, about half are arson or are suspicious, the government-funded Institute of Criminology said this month. Parliament suspended normal debate for a second day Tuesday to hear condolence speeches. The possibility of arson leaves us speechless, Rudd said. This ... is simply murder on a grand scale.President Barack Obama telephoned Rudd to convey his condolences and offer assistance. Dozens of other world leaders also sent condolences. Firefighters continued to battle more than a dozen blazes across Victoria on Tuesday, although conditions were much cooler than during the weekend. Forecasters said temperatures would rise later in the week, posing a risk of flare-ups.

Death toll in Australian wildfires rises past 170 By TANALEE SMITH, Associated Press Writer FEB 9,09

WHITTLESEA, Australia – Disaster teams found charred bodies on roadsides and in crashed cars — grim signs of the futile attempt to flee raging wildfires fed by 60 mph winds, record heat and drought that caught even fire-savvy Australians by surprise.As the death toll rose Tuesday to 173 in Australia's worst wildfire disaster, suspicions that some of the 400 blazes were caused by arson led police to declare crime scenes in some of the incinerated towns, Victoria police said.The fires near Melbourne in southeastern Australia destroyed more than 750 homes, left 5,000 people homeless, and burned 1,100 square miles of land, the Victoria Country Fire Service said.Whole forests were reduced to leafless, charred trunks. Farmland was in ashes.The scale of the disaster shocked a nation that endures deadly firestorms every few years. Officials said panic and the freight-train speed of the walls of flames probably accounted for the unusually high death toll.It was very quick and ferocious and took everyone by surprise, said Jack Barber, who with his wife, a neighbor, six cats and a dog sought refuge with five other people on a cricket field surrounded by trees in Kinglake.All around us was 100-foot flames ringing the oval, and we ran where the wind wasn't. It was swirling all over the place, he said. For three hours, we dodged the wind.Firefighters battled more than a dozen blazes that burned out of control across Victoria state, although conditions were much cooler than Saturday. Forecasters said temperatures would rise later this week, posing a risk of flare-ups.Blazes have been burning for weeks across several states in southern Australia, common for time of year. But the worst drought in a century in the south had left forests extra dry, and Saturday's temperature was 117 degrees, the relative humidity was 7 percent, and the wind was gusting to 50 mph.

I cannot fathom in my mind anything more hellish, firewise, said Jim Andrews, senior meteorologist at accuweather.com. He added that Australia's vegetation, such as eucalyptus and gum trees, contain flammable aromatic oils.Flags across Australia flew at half-staff and Parliament suspended its normal sessions to hear emotional condolence speeches by legislators.Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was visibly upset during a TV interview and reflected disgust that arsonists may be to blame.What do you say about anyone like that? Rudd said. There's no words to describe it, other than it's mass murder.Attorney General Robert McClelland said anyone found to have deliberately set fires could face murder charges.Victoria Police Commissioner Christine Nixon said investigators had strong suspicions that one of the deadly blazes — known as the Churchill fire after a ruined town — was arson, and it could not be ruled out for others.Arson is not uncommon in Australian wildfires. Of the estimated 60,000 fires in forests and other vegetation each year, about half are deliberately lit or are suspicious, the government-funded Institute of Criminology said earlier this month.In New South Wales State on Monday, a 31-year-old man appeared in court charged with arson in connection with a weekend wildfire north of Sydney. No loss of life was reported there, and he faces up to 10 years in prison.

At relief centers, survivors wept and embraced as they reunited with neighbors and looked for loved ones. An impromptu message board at Whittlesea Community Center displayed yellow sticky notes. Lisa, call me. We are worried about you, one read. Rob, Tash, Jorja and Leslie, Where are you? Call mom and dad, read another. Many survivors said the speed of the fires caught them off guard and even those who had planned to evacuate found themselves forced to outrun flames sooner than expected.

At Kinglake, a body covered by a white sheet lay in a yard where every tree and blade of grass was blackened. The burned-out hulks of four cars were clustered together haphazardly after an apparent collision. What we've seen, I think, is that people didn't have enough time, in some cases, Nixon said. We're finding (bodies) on the side of roads, in cars that crashed.Police sealed off Maryville, a town destroyed by another fire, and told returning residents and reporters they could not enter because bodies were still in the streets. Donna Bateman, whose home in Kinglake West burned to the ground with her pets inside, said firefighters barely had a chance. Everyone has a fire plan. People prepare for this for months, she said. But the fire service told me that a fire that usually takes a day to travel had traveled three-quarters of a mile in an hour to my property. Now everything is gone.Officials said both the tolls of human life and property would almost certainly rise as they reached deeper into the disaster zone. Victoria state Premier John Brumby said a commission would examine all aspects of the fires, including warning and evacuation policies that allow people to stay to protect their homes. Some former police officials dismissed the idea of forced evacuations, noting the ferocity of the weekend fires seemed to preclude such an option. I think our policy has served us well in what I'd call normal conditions, but what we saw at the weekend were just not normal conditions, Brumby told Australian Broadcasting Corp. television. We prepared, I guess, for a high tide, a king tide even, but what ran over the state was more like a tsunami.

There were extraordinary tales of survival.

Daryl Hogan of Wandong, 12 miles north of Whittlesea, said he jumped into his pool to escape the flames as they roared over his house, leaving it unburned but destroying his neighbor's home. Mark Strubing said he and a companion were unable to outrace the flames, so they took refuge in a drainage pipe under the road as his property outside Kinglake was destroyed. Mate, I've looked at this pipe before, you'd never ever crawl under there. It's full of spiders and all sorts of uglies, he told Nine Network TV news. He said they rolled around in the water in the pipe to wet their clothing as flames started licking inside the pipe. It was a terrible dark place to go, but it felt pretty good at the time because I'd be dead right now if I didn't, he said. Scientists say it is impossible to blame man-made global warming causes for any single event, such as the weekend wildfires. However, Australia's top climate scientists said in a major report two years ago that global warming will make the country more prone to these types of intensive fires, even pinpointing the southeast — the region now ablaze. Heat waves and fires are virtually certain to increase in intensity and frequency in Australia and New Zealand, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded. An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread, the report said. The conditions that lead to more fires are worsened by global warming, said Mike MacCracken, scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

Both the rising carbon dioxide concentration and climate change cause conditions to be more favorable to wildfire, MacCracken said. You get faster build of biomass (grasses and trees), you get more intense drying, longer periods without rain. So you create the conditions that can lead to wildfire.Associated Press writers Rohan Sullivan in Sydney, Seth Borenstein in Washington and Carley Petesch in New York contributed to this report.

DISEASES

REVELATION 6:7-8
7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse:(CHLORES GREEN) and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword,(WEAPONS) and with hunger,(FAMINE) and with death,(INCURABLE DISEASES) and with the beasts of the earth.(ANIMAL TO HUMAN DISEASE).

Lab tests show possible salmonella at Texas plant By KATE BRUMBACK, Associated Press Writer FEB 10,09

Reuters – The building of the now-closed Peanut Corporation of America plant is pictured in Blakely, Georgia on … ATLANTA – Private lab tests show there may have been salmonella at a second plant operated by the peanut company at the center of a national outbreak, Texas health officials said Tuesday.The Peanut Corp. of America temporarily closed its plant in Plainview, Texas, Monday night at the request of health officials after the tests found the possible presence of salmonella in some of its products, the Texas Department of Health said in a statement.It does not appear that any of the possibly contamintated products from the Texas plant reached consumers, officials said. The Texas plant produces peanut meal, granulated peanuts and dry roasted peanuts.The company is being investigated in connection with an outbreak has sickened 600 people and may have caused at least eight deaths. It also has led to the recall of more than 1,800 consumer products. Peanut Corp. closed its plant in Blakely, Ga., last month after federal investigators identified that facility as the source of the salmonella outbreak.An Associated Press investigation last week revealed that the Plainview plant, which opened in March 2005 and was run by a subsidiary, Plainview Peanut Co., operated uninspected and unlicensed by state health officials until after the company came under investigation last month by the Food and Drug Administration.Doug McBride, spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, said Peanut Corp. agreed to shut the plant voluntarily as it works with the state agency.The Texas closing comes a day after the FBI raided the company's plant in Georgia, hauling off boxes and other material. Agents executed search warrants at both the plant and at Peanut Corp.'s headquarters in Lynchburg, Va., according to a senior congressional aide with knowledge of the raids. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.Plainview Mayor John Anderson said Tuesday the Texas plant employed 30 people. It was not immediately clear how they would be affected by the suspension.

I'm just very sorry to hear that, Plainview Mayor John Anderson said Tuesday when a reporter called with news of the suspension. Hopefully it's just a temporary suspension. That'd be the best of all worlds.Food safety attorney Bill Marler, one of several plaintiff's attorneys who has filed civil lawsuits against the company since the outbreak started, said it was the latest disturbing turn for Peanut Corp.It is clear that PCA is not a producer that companies could — or can — rely on for a safe product,he said.Associated Press Writers Brett Blackledge in Washington, Greg Bluestein in Atlanta and Betsy Blaney in Lubbock, Texas contributed to this report.

Spain withdraws cervical cancer shot after illnesses Tue Feb 10, 10:05 am ET

MADRID (AFP) – Spanish health authorities have withdrawn tens of thousands of doses of a vaccine against cervical cancer after two teenagers who received the shots were hospitalised, regional authorities said on Tuesday.A batch of nearly 76,000 doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) was withdrawn from market, a government statement said, after two girls in the eastern Valencia region fell seriously ill hours after receiving them.One of the girls got out of intensive care this weekend and the other is still there. Both are in stable condition, a Valencia health department spokeswoman told AFP.The two girls were vaccinated last week as part of a vast government vaccination programme targeting adolescents.The vaccine prevents the most common types of HPV, a common virus spread through sexual contact that can cause cervical cancer.Some 500,000 cases of cervical cancer are discovered each year, according to United Nations estimates, many in developing countries. If left untreated, invasive cervical cancer is almost always fatal.Spanish health authorities said in a statement the batch of the Gardasil brand of vaccines was distributed country-wide, with some earmarked for regional vaccination programs and the rest sold at pharmacies.The vaccine has been available for girls since 2006, ideally before their first sexual encounter.Sweden recently announced it would offer the vaccines to all primary school girls free of charge as of 2010.

DOCTOR DOCTORIAN FROM ANGEL OF GOD
then the angel said, Financial crisis will come to Asia. I will shake the world.

JAMES 5:1-3
1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

REVELATION 18:10,17,19
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

EZEKIEL 7:19
19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

REVELATION 13:16-18
16 And he(FALSE POPE) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:(CHIP IMPLANT)
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.(6-6-6) A NUMBER SYSTEM

WORLD MARKET RESULTS
http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/

HALF HOUR DOW RESULTS TUE FEB 10,2009

09:30 AM -21.51
10:00 AM -50.18
10:30 AM -69.72
11:00 AM -90.40
11:30 AM -200.39
12:00 PM -279.41
12:30 PM -294.94
01:00 PM -292.47
01:30 PM -348.78
02:00 PM -337.79
02:30 PM -380.60
03:00 PM -389.80
03:30 PM -387.41
04:00 PM -381.99 7888.88

S&P 500 827.16 -42.73

NASDAQ 1524.73 -66.83

GOLD 916.70 +23.90

OIL 38.18 -1.38

TSE 300 8817.89 -229.39

CDNX 902.09 +0.99

S&P/TSX/60 531.75 -14.47

MORNING,NEWS,STATS

YEAR TO DATE PERFORMANCE
Dow -5.76%
S&P -3.69%
Nasdaq +0.92%
TSX Advances 599,declines 548,unchanged 225,Volume 827,424,095.
TSX Venture Exchange Advances 336,Declines 352,Unchanged 328,Volume 137,905,427.

Dow -59 points at 4 minutes of trading today.
Dow -283 points at low today.
Dow -21 points at high today so far.
Gold opens at $912.80 today,Oil opens at $41.47 today.
ISRAEL SAYS WERES OUR OBAMA(FALSE MESSIAH).
LiveNation,Ticket master agree to merge of equals.
General Motors to cut salary position to 63,000 from 73,000 this year.
Needham cuts Yahoo to HOLD from BUY citing online AD weakness.
UBS swiss regulator agree to cut 08 executive bonuses by 78%.
While Dodd and Geithner was talking the markets dropped quick.

BONDS THIS MORNING
-36 BILLION in 1 month bills.
-23 BILLION in 1 year bills.
-32 BILLION in 3 year notes.
-91 BILLION on tap for Today.

RUSSIAS EXTERNAL DEBT
-External debt stock was $540 BILLION(32% of GDP)as of OCT 1,2008.
-80% of external debt is denominated in foreign exchange.
-Ruble has depreciated 50% to the US dollar over the past 6 months.
MOSCOW DENIES REPORTS OF DEBT RESCHEDULING PLANS.
Will Russia be able to pay its debts? IT could cause a Domino of cascading problems in Europe for many of those Banks that have lent to many of the huge eastern european countries and the smaller ones as well.

AFTERNOON,NEWS,STATS
Dow -380 points at low today so far.
Dow -21 points at high today so far.

DAY TODAY PERFORMANCE - 12:30PM STATS
NYSE Advances 738,declines 2,891,unchanged 84,New Highs 7,New Lows 75.
Volume 3,787,180,548.
NASDAQ Advances 671,declines 1,957,unchanged 125,New highs 5,New Lows 53.
Volume 1,159,599,671.
TSX Advances 463,declines 534,unchanged 222,Volume 518,108,604.
TSX Venture Exchange Advances 258,Declines 251,Unchanged 259,Volume 68,389,194.

FLIGHT TO SAFETY RETURNS
-Bonds rally.
-Stocks commodities sell off.
FINANCIALS HIT
-Talk of stress test.
-Lack of specifics in Geithner speech.
WHAT THE STREET WANTS
-Reduce uncertainty in in Asset values.
-Improve confidence to make investments in Financial Assets.
All 30 dow stocks lower today.
Major averages extend losses after Geithner,Bernanke speaks.
Stocks down 4% so far today.
Dow,S&P have biggest one day drop since JANUARY 20,09.

WRAPUP,NEWS,STATS
Dow -421 points at low today.
Dow -21 points at high today.
Dow -4.62% today Volume 449,893,576
Nasdaq -4.20% today Volume 2,147,483,648
S&P 500 -4.91% today Volume N/A

EU mulls extraordinary summit on financial crisis
ANDREW WILLIS 09.02.2009 @ 17:16 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Czech EU presidency is expected to call EU leaders for an informal meeting at the end of this month to help forge a unified response to the global economic slowdown.A European Commission spokesperson said the meeting would be a preparatory exchange of views and characterised the event as part of an intensive series of preparations before the leaders meet for their formal spring summit in March.The decision follows a telephone conversation on Monday morning (9 February) between European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek.Both were criticised last week by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for failing to tackle the financial crisis head-on. The informal summit is the latest in a plethora of high-level discussions between member states and EU officials to deal with the ongoing financial crisis and economic slowdown that show little sign of abating. So far, national capitals have been taking their own steps to tackle the crisis with scant regard for EU unity.European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet had little in the way of positive news regarding the eurozone economy last Thursday when he talked to reporters following the bank's decision to hold interest rates at two percent. This and increasing social unrest - seen in the UK, France, Greece, Latvia and Lithuania - set the scene for an EU finance ministers meeting in Brussels.

Eurozone ministers

Eurozone finance ministers will meet on Monday evening to discuss the impact of the financial crisis on the real economy and possible labour market reforms within the 16-nation zone. Informally they will also discuss the EU bond market and member state sovereign debts, two issues that are causing considerable alarm amongst commission officials and market investors. The rising cost of borrowing for some peripheral EU member states increases the risk of these governments defaulting on debt repayments. Some analysts predict that this in turn could result in these member states leaving the eurozone.In an unusual move, Mr Barroso will also attend the eurogroup meeting to relay the commission's message on the current crisis, with the Brussels executive due to present proposals on how to tackle the financial crisis at the beginning of March.As member states desperately try to stem the flow of job losses and factory closures that have continued in recent weeks, the commission has stuck to its message that protectionist measures will only exacerbate the problem. Likewise, economic commissioner Joaquin Almunia has reiterated on numerous occasions that member states must put their public finances in order to prevent ballooning budget deficits threatening the future stability of the eurozone.

Deficits swell

The commission will present its position on eurozone member state stability programmes on 18 February before announcing at a meeting of finance ministers on 9 March which countries will face excessive deficit action. The commission is legally obliged to take action against member states whose deficits exceed 3 percent of their GDP and finance ministers will likely discuss at next month's meeting what measures these countries should be requested to carry out and under what timeframe.

Late on Monday, the leaders of France and Germany backed the call for an informal emergency summit.Restoring credit must remain a key priority, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote in a joint letter to Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and to the European Commission. Despite the billions of euros pumped out in an effort to encourage banks to restart offering loans, the credit crunch has hardly eased since the crisis began.We must renew our commitment to a return to sustainable public finances, the two leaders added in their letter.

EU signs pact with Internet networking sites (AP)
Posted on Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:32AM EST

BRUSSELS - The European Union has signed a pact with 17 social networking providers including Facebook, MySpace and Google to improve safeguards against the bullying of teenagers online.EU spokesman Martin Selmayr says networking sites are now used by some 42 million people in the European Union, and young users need to be protected from abusive behavior on the Web sites.The agreement commits the site operators to limit the risks of misuse by providing a report abuse button. This allows users to report inappropriate contact from or conduct by another user.The site operators must also make sure online profiles and contact lists of underage users are set to the highest privacy settings.The EU announced the agreement Tuesday.

Stocks fall as gov't unveils financial plan By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer FEB 10,09

NEW YORK – Investors are turning skeptical about the government's latest bank bailout plan.Financial stocks led the market lower Tuesday, reflecting Wall Street's growing concerns about the government's ability to restore the health of the banking industry. All the major stock indexes fell more than 2 percent, including the Dow Jones industrial average, which tumbled more than 300 points.Traders and investors said the lack of specifics from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on how the government would direct more than $1 trillion in public and private support was troubling.The plan is aimed at restoring proper functioning to credit markets, which seized up over worries about bad debt after the September bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The latest plan calls for a government-private sector partnership to help remove banks' soured assets from their books.It also would boost an effort to unclog the credit markets that govern loans to consumers and businesses. Funding for the effort would jump to $100 billion from $20 billion.The good news is they are going to spend a trillion dollars, the bad news is they don't know how, said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group.They built this up as being a panacea,he said. There was so much hope pinned on them to do a good job. The expectations have been so high. It's hard to live up to.Investors also seemed to be questioning whether this plan, which followed previous efforts in the final months of 2008, would be the one that works. Some selling was to be expected, however, as stocks rose sharply last week ahead of the announcement.

Geithner's speech basically puts a spotlight on the fact that the government has no idea how to fix the problem, said Jeff Buetow, senior portfolio manager at Portfolio Management Consultants. People bought on rumor and hope, and now they're selling on reality.Investors showed little reaction to the Senate's approval of its $838 billion economic stimulus package. The bill must now be reconciled with an $819 billion version passed by the House. Congressional leaders hope to have the bill on President Obama's desk before a recess next week.Investors found little comfort in comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He said in prepared remarks for his testimony at a House Financial Services Committee hearing that the programs designed to revive the credit markets are showing promise. He also pledged to keep Americans better informed about efforts to battle the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.In early afternoon trading, the Dow industrials fell 316.36, or 3.82 percent, to 7,954.51.Broader stock indicators also fell. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 34.50, or 3.97 percent, to 835.39, and the Nasdaq fell 49.79, or 3.13 percent, to 1,541.77.The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 14.09, or 3.01 percent, to 453.85.Declining issues outnumbered advancers by about 5 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 746.1 million shares.Bond prices were mixed Tuesday. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 2.88 percent from 2.99 percent late Monday. The yield on the three-month T-bill, considered one of the safest investments, was unchanged from late Monday at 0.32 percent.The dollar was mixed against other major currencies. Gold prices rose.Light, sweet crude rose 27 cents to $39.83 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. A government report that wholesalers cut back on their inventories in December by the largest amount in 16 years also weighed on the market. The reduction means wholesalers ordered fewer new goods, leading to reduced production and potentially more job layoffs. The Commerce Department said wholesale inventories plunged by 1.4 percent, nearly double analysts' expectations of 0.8 percent. It also was the fourth straight monthly decline. I think generally we just don't know enough. We just don't know enough of what it all means, said Jon Biele, head of capital markets at Cowen & Co. It's digestion time.Bank stocks fell after the bailout plan was announced. Bank of America Corp. fell $1.11, or 16 percent, to $5.78, while Wells Fargo & Co. fell $2.19, or 11.5 percent, to $16.87.

Regional banks showed big drops. Fifth Third Bancorp fell 60 cents, or 21 percent, to $2.29, while Huntington Bancshares Inc. fell 59 cents, or 23 percent, to $2.02. Conglomerate General Electric Co., which has a big finance arm and often trades like a bank stock, fell 97 cents, or 7.7 percent, to $11.67. Principal Financial Group Inc. fell $4.81, or 28 percent, to $12.22 after the insurer posted a fourth-quarter loss on investment and loan losses. The company's report raised fears that the company will be forced to raise cash. More downbeat corporate news served as unnecessary reminders of just how bad the economic situation remains. Alcoa Inc. fell 54 cents, or 6.4 percent, to $7.96 after a ratings agency slashed the aluminum producer's corporate credit rating. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it expected the company's credit metrics to deteriorate significantly this year.

General Motors Corp. said it will cut 10,000 salaried jobs in 2009, as part of the restructuring plan the company submitted to Congress late last year. GM rose 2 cents to $2.85. Airplane maker and defense contractor Boeing Co. late Monday lowered its reported fourth-quarter and fiscal 2008 earnings per share results, citing lower aircraft values in its customer financing portfolio and increased liabilities linked to an arbitration ruling. Last month, the company reported a surprise fourth-quarter loss and announced plans to cut 10,000 jobs. Boeing fell $2.38, or 5.6 percent, to $40.42. Meanwhile, Intel Corp. announced plans to spend $7 billion upgrading its U.S. factories during the next two years. The chip maker's move was a welcome dose of confidence for the economy. Intel fell 48 cents, or 3.2 percent, to $14.43.
Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average fell 0.29 percent. In afternoon trading, Britain's FTSE 100 fell 2.19 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 3.46 percent, and France's CAC-40 fell 3.64 percent. On the Net: New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com

EU scrambles for co-ordinated action on troubled assets ANDREW WILLIS
Today FEB 10,09 @ 17:50 CET

European Union finance ministers agreed on Tuesday (10 February) to co-ordinate their different approaches to dealing with toxic assets.Czech finance minister Miroslav Kalousek, whose country currently holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency, said ministers adopted common lines of communication and highlighted the need for transparency, fair competition and public support. Many European banks currently hold large volumes of toxic or impaired assets such as unpaid loans or share holdings in stricken companies. EU governments feel that the containment of these assets is crucial to restoring public confidence and the restarting of credit flows to businesses. However, the question of how to value such assets, many of which now are deemed worthless at current market prices, has proved a sticking point thus far. We need to have clear guidelines on how to evaluate assets and clear guidelines on which assets are viable for these kind of support schemes, economy commissioner Joaquin Almunia said Tuesday after attending the meeting of finance ministers.The commission has announced its intention to present guidelines for the treatment of impaired assets, just as we did in the past with re-capitalisation and bank guarantee schemes, he said.The guidelines, to be presented in a couple of weeks, will provide a framework for assessing the value of these assets, which assets should be eligible for the support schemes, and the conditions that should be imposed on the banks choosing to take up support measures.

A further threat to fiscal stability?

In recent weeks, investors have become increasingly wary of lending money to countries with ballooning budget deficits. Some now question whether the government purchase of toxic assets and the inevitable costs this will entail might not be a further destabilising factor, leading to increased market concern. The more assets the governments buy, the greater their liability and the greater their risk of [credit agency] downgrading, Rym Ayadi, a senior research fellow with the Centre for European Policy Studies, told this website. Indeed, it is hard to square the stated desire of many EU governments for fiscal prudence with the large-scale purchase of devalued assets at inflated prices. You need to assess the cost of each option for the taxpayer, said Ms Ayadi on the various schemes now being considered which include bad banks and complicated asset insurance schemes.There are a lot of fundamental questions and I think the governments are stretching public opinion, she added. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said on Tuesday: The response of the eurozone countries to the financial and economic crisis deformed the joint project of the euro more than any other imaginable event.Extending this concern to the union in general, Ms Ayadi said that there was a strong need for co-ordinated approach to the financial crisis for the benefit of the EU.

EU running scared over protectionism
HONOR MAHONY Today FEB 10,09 @ 17:32 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU politicians and businesses are sounding the alarm about the descent towards protectionism in Europe, as member states attempt to ride out the economic downturn with measures designed to help domestic workers and companies.

With national governments coming under mounting pressure to help citizens in fear of losing their jobs, the European Commission is fighting a rearguard action to stop the EU's huge internal market being undermined.Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso is to discuss the threat of protectionism with his fellow commissioners at a meeting on Wednesday.We need to co-ordinate our responses to protect the single market from protectionism, even from the inside, he said at the beginning of the week.The free trade message is regularly heard at the daily commission press briefing, where spokespeople refer to the spiral of protectionism or suggest that closing borders will worsen the crisis and lead to a situation akin to the Great Depression of the 1930s.Meanwhile, the Czech EU Presidency, which earlier this week launched a blistering attack on the French government for being protectionist, has called an emergency summit at the end of February to tackle the issue.I am convinced that the internal market is the long-term instrument that will help us overcome the crisis, said Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek.The internal market is the cornerstone upon which the bloc is built, with EU law guaranteeing the free movement of workers, goods, services and capital.

It is the European Commission's job to see that these principles are being respected, but events are moving so fast that the Brussels executive is scrambling to keep up with proposals by member states.The main threat lies with state aid and bail-outs – particularly to banks - that threaten to undermine open competition. Several member states have also helped their car industries.On Tuesday (10 February), the commission expressed concern about a state rescue plan for the French car sector saying it wants clarification of the proposals.In addition, the principle of free movement of workers risks being weakened as domestic workforces compete for less jobs. At the end of January, the UK was hit by a series of strikes over the use of foreign workers for a construction project at an oil refinery. The eventual compromise saw the French firm in charge of the refinery agreeing to hire a certain number of British workers for the contract.

EU businesses have also expressed fears.

Small businesses are increasingly concerned by the new wave of protectionism that has hit Europe in the last weeks and made its way into a number of national economic recovery programmes, said Andrea Benassi, secretary general of small businesse group UEAPME.Reverting to nationalism is a short-sighted and irresponsible choice, he continued.Meanwhile, member states are starting to criticise one another's recovery plans as the economic recession continues to bite. Sweden, a strong proponent of free trade, had said it is very worried about the French measures.By contrast, Swedish state aid is based on market rates that do not contribute to protectionism and to a worsening of the economic situation in Europe, said Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, during a visit to Brussels on Monday.

Senate passes Obama's economic recovery plan FEB 10,09

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan has passed the Senate and is on its way to difficult House-Senate negotiations.Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.Those cuts are among the major differences between the $819 billion House version of Obama's plan and a Senate bill costing $838 billion. Obama has warned of a deepening economic crisis if Congress fails to act. He wants a bill completed by the weekend.The bill backed by the White House survived a key test vote in the Senate Monday despite strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.Monday's vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to advance the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.

As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week, said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.He said passage would mark the first step on the long road to recovery.Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week.This bill has the votes to pass. We know that, conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill, said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size — $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, the differences are considerable. The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes. Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars. Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats. There are dozens of differences on spending. The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic. On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter.

Stimulus bill narrowly survives Senate test vote By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent FEB 9,09

WASHINGTON – An $838 billion economic stimulus bill backed by the White House narrowly advanced in the Senate on Monday over strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver the emergency legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.The vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to move the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.

As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week, said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, he declared he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.He said passage would mark "the first step on the long road to recovery.Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week. Ironically, the agency said provisions in the bill intended to limit bonuses to executives at firms receiving federal bailout money would result in lower tax revenues for the government.This bill has the votes to pass. We know that, conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.

Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill, said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., ridiculed the bill. The emperor has no clothes! Somebody has to say it. I'm referring to this additional bailout, this spending bill that spends everything we've got on nothing we are sure about.All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size — $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.At the same time, the differences are considerable.The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes. Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars.

Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats. There are dozens of differences on spending. The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic. On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter. Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.

IMF Chief Sees Big Economies in Depression Monday, February 9, 2009 9:42 AM
By: Julie Crawshaw

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn used the word depression to describe economies in the United States, Western Europe and Japan at a meeting of the South East Asian Central Banks in Kuala Lumpur. The IMF’s most recent economic projections show that global growth will be close to zero, the worst performance in most of our lifetimes, Strauss-Kahn said. The United States, Western Europe and Japan are already in depression.Governments and central banks need to act decisively in support of investors, Strauss-Kahn said. Some countries are trying to make government support of banks conditional on their giving priority to domestic borrowers, to the detriment of financing across borders, he noted. This will hurt emerging economies, whose growth depends on access to foreign bank financing. It is protectionism in the financial markets, and its consequences could be as damaging and dangerous as the trade protectionism of the 1930s.Strauss-Kahn’s comments are the most severe expressed by a major political figure thus far, and were considerably more pessimistic than his agency’s forecast even last month. Fed member Janet Yellen has joined the chorus of financial leaders unafraid of invoking the D word in public as world economies reel.

Economic growth in the rest of the world — including Europe and Japan — has weakened sharply for a number of reasons, including spillovers from the U.S. recession and the financial meltdown that now has spread globally, Janet L. Yellen, president of the Federal Bank of San Francisco said this week. Yellen said the world economy appears to have entered recession in late 2008, and it seems likely that this contraction may last for some time. 2009 Newsmax.

01/June/2005 The international monetary process Hugo Salinas Price

A system refers to some activity that endures through time. Once a system is created and installed, the associated activity will be maintained for an indefinite period. This is possible, because all systems incorporate internal controls which correct the activity when it tends to go beyond certain limits or parameters. If the activity were not contained, the parameter would be violated, the system would become unstable and its activity would come to an end.All systems have parameters or limits to their activity which ensure their stability and operation through time.

As an example, a modern steam boiler incorporates a control system which monitors the level of its water, the temperature and steam pressure. The danger posed by a boiler with no controls leads manufacturers to install back-ups to these controls, to make an explosion totally impossible. Limits in the activity of the boiler are essential to safe operation.When we speak of any system, we must recognize its critical parameters. Beyond the parameters, the system breaks. In the case of a steam boiler, it may explode.We mention all this, because once upon a time, the world had an International Monetary System.The international monetary system that once existed came into being spontaneously, with no premeditation and as a consequence of growing world commerce and its need to make payments around the world. The British victory over Napoleon at the beginning of the 19th Century and the opening of world markets to international commerce under the influence of the Economic Liberalism of that era had much to do with the birth of the international monetary system.This system was based on a fundamental principle which allowed its orderly development: international money was gold, and to a lesser extent and in certain parts of the world, silver.Towards the end of the 19th Century, no one could imagine that there might be another kind of money that was not gold or silver. It was simply unimaginable, at that time, that anything else might serve as money.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, silver was eliminated as international money and the world’s money was gold from then on, until 1971.The great banks of the 19th and 20th Centuries were founded upon gold. At the beginning of that era, international financial relations were systematized on the basis of gold as money. International payments were denominated in gold exclusively. Banknote issues were bills payable to the bearer at sight in gold. If a bank could not redeem instantly in gold the banknotes it had placed in circulation, it was deemed to be bankrupt.

Gold was thus, the factor which limited the extension of further credit and the issue of banknotes. The critical parameter for any bank, was the supply of gold in its vault, with which to liquidate or redeem in gold its banknotes, to the bearer at sight. Under no circumstances could a serious bank run the risk of not being able to redeem its banknotes, due to a lack of gold.The international monetary system was a true system and it reached its highest development in 1913.From that year on the system was constantly under attack, which took the form of implementing subterfuges so that banking activity might achieve its objective: the gradual circumvention of gold, which was the obstacle to the unhindered expansion of banking credit. The brightest brains concentrated their attention on the search for ways to eliminate or circumvent that obstacle, without provoking the concern of the public or the authorities.At the end of World War II, the world monetary system was overhauled. The monetary use of gold was restricted to gold payments which the U.S. might make to Central Banks of the world, in exchange for dollars those banks might wish to return to the U.S. And as of 1933, no individual in any part of the world had a right to collect gold upon tendering a bank I.O.U., a banknote. Under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, only Central Banks retained the right to collect gold from the U.S. in exchange for American dollars, the American I.O.U.s.Even so, gold remained a nuisance; the special nuisance for the U.S. was its established obligation to deliver gold in return for dollars tendered for payment by Central Banks: too many countries were turning in, for gold, the dollars which the U.S. was issuing in quantities larger than the world market wished to retain. U.S. gold reserves shrank from over 20 thousand tons at the end of WWII, to some 8 thousand.

On the other hand, the U.S. wanted to continue to issue more money to pay for its expenditures on war and social programs. The international monetary system was approaching a critical parameter, but any corrective measure was discarded.Instead of reining in the excess, the U.S. discarded gold, the control which was critical to the system and which was signaling an imperative halt to excessive expenditure.On August 15th, 1971, the world was left without an “International Monetary System”. What remained, and remains to this day, after the U.S. refused to redeem dollars for gold, is no longer a system. It cannot be a system, because the internal control which blocked the violation of critical parameters and insured operational stability has been removed.We present an eloquent graph. It shows quite clearly that, as of 1971 and to date, the world no longer functions under an international monetary system, but within an international monetary explosion.Many hundreds of thousands of officers and employees of banks and financial institutions are under the impression that there is an international monetary system, because each of these individuals has to carry out his work under a set of rules. The rules governing the internal operations of their companies lead them to believe that the world as a whole has a monetary system. The attention of these people is concentrated on the systematic activity of the financial institutions or banks in which they work. As far as the whole of which they form a part, they are really mistaken, for there is no international monetary system.After a century of attacks on the critical limiting factor, we have passed from a system, as an activity regulated and controlled within limits, to a process. What we have today is an international monetary process. A process is not self-sustaining, it has a beginning, a middle and an end.An explosion is a violent process which begins, expands and finally exhausts itself and ends.

In 1970, U.S. credit expansion had already violated the critical parameter. An unmanageable quantity of dollars - $56 billion, which originated in U.S. credit expansion - was lying in the reserves of Central Banks around the world, and these Banks were calling for gold and provoking a gold hemorrhage at the U.S. Treasury.In 1971, when the U.S. unilaterally revoked its promise to redeem dollars for gold, it eliminated the internal control which blocked exaggerated credit expansion in the international monetary system; the system became an international monetary process, which is now nothing less than a monetary explosion.Reserves grew from $56 billion dollars in 1970, to $419 billion fifteen years later, in 1985 – a number 7.5 times larger. Note by comparison, the relatively static behavior of world Central Bank reserves from 1948, when the value of the gold in reserves was greater than value of the paper currencies used as reserves, to 1969. During those years, the U.S. monetary authorities were somewhat disciplined by their respect for the established parameter, the obligation to redeem dollars tendered by Central Banks, for gold. The feedback to monetary policy which originated in gold flows maintained the stability of the international monetary system.

In 1971 the international monetary system was broken and the world entered a runaway process of credit expansion and money creation.

Growth of world monetary reserves in Central Banks, excluding gold:

1970 - $56 billion dollars.

1985 - $419 billion (14.4% annual increase, compounded during 15 years)

1990 - $655 billion (56% increase in 5 years)

1995 - $988 billion (51% increase in 5 years)

2000 - $1,544 billion (56% increase in 5 years)

2005 - $3,557 billion (130% increase in 5 years)

Projected:

2010 - $8,181 billion (130% increase in 5 years)

Oceans of paper money increasing at an increasing rate of increase!There is no international monetary system; there is an international monetary process and that process has the characteristics of an explosion.All processes have a beginning, a middle and an end.Will the explosive process continue for five more years? We know that the moment that the explosive expansion ends, the contraction of credit will be immediate and violent: after the explosion comes the implosion of credit.When this irresponsible expansion of credit (debt) and explosive creation of money comes to an end, as the process exhausts itself, the world as we know it today will be in ruins after the collapse (the implosion) of the world’s financial structure.

Jan. 27, 2009 The World Depression that has begun is a consequence of decades of creation of gigantic quantities of debt (which is referred to as credit expansion, because credit sounds better than debt - although these are simply two faces of the same thing.)

World debt is now unsustainable. (See my article written four years ago, June 1, 2005,The international monetary process, regarding the explosion of credit and its inevitable implosion, when it should reach unsustainability. Unsustainable because the payment of interest to maintain world debt current and live exceeds the ability to pay in the whole world.)There is no other way out of this swamp of excessive debt - and we state this categorically - other than by the cancellation of enormous amounts of debt, as noncollectable. This will require massive bankruptcies; this is the indispensable economic medicine to restore economic health to the world. If we want to get well soon and go ahead with healthy economic activity, productive of wealth, this is what is required. Such drastic action may perhaps be intolerable, politically. But the slower the process of wiping out debt, the longer it will take to get well Besides this medicine, it would be possible to cancel debt in a parallel action which might be more palatable politically: the depreciation of the currencies of the world through inflation of the money supply. This would make it possible to pay interest on the marginally bad debt and its elimination through liquidation, because the currency used would be devalued monetary units. The combination of bankruptcies through default on unpayable debts, plus monetary inflation, might be the least painful road to the recuperation of economic health. This process would take longer and the pain would last longer, but perhaps it would be easier to withstand, politically. The more we want to avoid pain, the longer it will take to achieve normalcy - the term used in the 30's. We would be in a crisis for many years. There is no other way out: the cancellation of massive noncollectable debt is inevitable. The gigantic creation of credit/debt during the past decades, which was enabled by fiat money around the world, allowed the world to live at a level which is now unsustainable. Huge investments were made which had no relation to economic reality; that is to say, those were malinvestments which must now be recognized as such. This is the reality which cannot be hidden; it is the elephant in the living room. The great Central Bank financiers of the world still do not wish to recognize this reality. They are beating their brains out trying to find an economic medicine which may restore economic health, but without causing pain. There is no such medicine.

The economic house has burnt down and only the ashes are left. We must recognize the facts and start rebuilding upon sound foundations. The international currency for reconstruction must be, necessarily, gold. We arrived at paper money, fictitious money, through a series of pragmatic measures which began with the World War of 1914. These measures were based on adopting convenient arrangements from time to time as economic events unfolded. No thought was given to the principles that govern the creation of true prosperity. The world strayed far from the fundamental economic principle that currency must necessarily be linked to gold. This experiment determined that we must now suffer the consequences. Once the liquidation of the uncollectable credit/unpayable debt is accomplished, it will be necessary to stimulate as much as possible, but not in the keynesian sense of further inflation; the stimulation will have to be a stimulation of savings.

During the coming forced liquidation of credit/debt, the monetized silver ounce will protect those who save this coin: all the coins which can be minted will go directly to national savings and will protect Mexican families. Once the phase of liquidation is over, the return to a peso linked to gold will constitute a great incentive to the creation of mass savings; gold based currency will act, together with silver for popular use, to moderate consumption and stimulate savings, the only - only - foundationn for a sustainable prosperity for Mexico. It was the Mexican crisis of 94-95 that moved me to think about silver as money for Mexico , because I saw that what we had been missing was long term savings to finance the development of our country. This I expressed in my book of 1995, La Plata - el Camino para México. Two and two are four; the world is not flat, it is round. The fact is that prosperity cannot be produced through fictions such as fiat money, paper or digital. It is produced by work based upon the reality of gold and silver money. The longer the great financiers of the world postpone the recognition of reality, the longer it will the world take to emerge from the terrible swamp of Economic Depression .
http://financialsense.com/editorials/salinasprice/2009/0127.html

Makow Comment:There is not enough gold to stimulate economic activity. So while I find Price's analysis interesting, I don't thing gold backed currency is the answer. I think defaulting on phony debt and nationalization of the central banks is.

By Karen DeYoung,Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 8, 2009; Page A01

President Obama plans to order a sweeping overhaul of the National Security Council, expanding its membership and increasing its authority to set strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues. The result will be a dramatically different NSC from that of the Bush administration or any of its predecessors since the forum was established after World War II to advise the president on diplomatic and military matters, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, who described the changes in an interview. The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful, he said. Jones, a retired Marine general, made it clear that he will run the process and be the primary conduit of national security advice to Obama, eliminating the back channels that at times in the Bush administration allowed Cabinet secretaries and the vice president's office to unilaterally influence and make policy out of view of the others. We're not always going to agree on everything, Jones said, and so it's my job to make sure that minority opinion is represented to the president. But if at the end of the day he turns to me and says, Well, what do you think, Jones?, I'm going to tell him what I think.

The new structure, to be outlined in a presidential directive and a detailed implementation document by Jones, will expand the NSC's reach far beyond the range of traditional foreign policy issues and turn it into a much more elastic body, with Cabinet and departmental seats at the table -- historically occupied only by the secretaries of defense and state -- determined on an issue-by-issue basis. Jones said the directive will probably be completed this week. The whole concept of what constitutes the membership of the national security community -- which, historically has been, let's face it, the Defense Department, the NSC itself and a little bit of the State Department, to the exclusion perhaps of the Energy Department, Commerce Department and Treasury, all the law enforcement agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration, all of those things -- especially in the moment we're currently in, has got to embrace a broader membership, he said. New NSC directorates will deal with such department-spanning 21st-century issues as cybersecurity, energy, climate change, nation-building and infrastructure. Many of the functions of the Homeland Security Council, established as a separate White House entity by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, may be subsumed into the expanded NSC, although it is still undetermined whether elements of the HSC will remain as a separate body within the White House. Over the next 50 days, John O. Brennan, a CIA veteran who serves as presidential adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security and is Jones's deputy, will review options for the homeland council, including its responsibility for preparing for and responding to natural and terrorism-related domestic disasters. In a separate interview, Brennan described his task as a systems engineering challenge to avoid overlap with the new NSC while ensuring that homeland security matters, broadly defined, are going to get the attention they need from the White House.Organizational maps within the government will be redrawn to ensure that all departments and agencies take the same regional approach to the world, Jones said. The State Department, for example, considers Afghanistan, Pakistan and India together as South Asia, while the Pentagon draws a line at the Pakistan-India border, with the former under the Central Command and the latter part of the Pacific Command. Israel is part of the military's European Command, but the rest of the Middle East falls under Central Command; the State Department combines Israel and the Arab countries surrounding it in its Near East Bureau. We are going to reflect in the NSC all the regions of the world along some map line we can all agree on, Jones said.

The national security process, he said, will also be transparent to its clients inside the administration, with meeting agendas and outcomes made available to the whole community in real time. Each department will appoint someone to monitor the NSC process, enabling senior officials across the government to be ready to jump into issues without steep learning curves. Directorates inside Jones's NSC staff will oversee implementation of decisions. It doesn't mean that we micromanage or supervise, he said. But you have to make sure, . . . particularly if it's a presidential decision, that the president is kept abreast of how things are going. That it doesn't just fall off the end of the table and disappear into outer space.

Most modern chief executives have issued an early directive outlining a structure for making national security decisions. Although the 1947 National Security Act created the NSC and listed its membership -- including the president, the vice president, and the secretaries of state and defense -- each president has redefined it to fit his own needs and style. In recent administrations, the CIA director, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and at times the Treasury secretary have regularly attended principals meetings. At the same time, the role and power of the president's national security adviser, and the size of his staff, have grown larger or smaller depending on the president's wishes. But initial presidential intentions have often been waylaid by personalities and events. George W. Bush criticized Bill Clinton's NSC style as rambling and indecisive. Over the next eight years, however --as first-term Bush adviser Condoleezza Rice was outmaneuvered by Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and as Bush's second term became mired in an unpopular war and a failing economy -- decision-making quickly became more reactive than strategic, and deliberations were opaque to all but a small inner circle. The Obama administration -- with powerful figures such as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- appears crowded at the top of the national security pyramid and heavy with military officials, including Jones himself and retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair as director of national intelligence. Special envoys to trouble spots -- former diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and former senator George J. Mitchell to the Middle East -- have been given broad presidential authority. Although Jones said he strongly supports increased resources for the State Department, which is increasingly dwarfed by the size and expanding missions of the Defense Department, he has long been an outspoken proponent of a pro-active military in noncombat regions. He has advocated military collaboration with the oil and gas industry and with nongovernmental organizations abroad. But Jones said he sees an administration filled with colleagues rather than competitors. Since Jan. 20, I've had more meetings with the secretary of state and the secretary of defense than I've had in my entire lifetime, said Jones, who served as Marine Corps commandant, NATO military chief and, under Bush, a special Middle East envoy.

During a midafternoon interview last Thursday, Jones said he had already spoken face to face with Gates and had four telephone conversations with him that day. He has set up a standing Wednesday morning meeting with Gates and Clinton together in his office. I believe in collegiality . . . in sounding out people and getting them to participate, Jones said. I notice the president is very good at that. But he made clear he plans to apply military-like discipline to the NSC. The most important thing is that you are in fact the coordinator and you're the guy around which the meetings occur. When we chair a principals meeting, I'm the chairman. One of the first of many internal Bush administration clashes occurred when Cheney proposed that he, rather than Rice, chair NSC meetings. In his initial conversations with Obama before taking the job, Jones confirmed, he insisted on being in charge and having open and final access to the president on all national security matters. We engaged in about an hour-long discussion about what I was already thinking about the NSC; it happened, I think, to mesh pretty well with what his instincts were. He was clear about the role of the national security adviser, Jones said of Obama. The NSC will take on all national security matters that are strategic in nature and of such importance that the president of the United States would care about them, he said. Action groups from various departments and agencies will be formed around specific issues for as long as it takes to resolve them. Some of these things will be very short-term. When the problem goes away, the group goes away. Others will be ongoing. An Afghan strategic review, that's going to take a while, Jones said. The policy that is generated from that review, and the implementation, is going to take a while.

Some principals will be regulars at the NSC just by force of issues, he said, and you can't just designate the whole government as being there. But everyone should be kept aware of what's going on and given an opportunity to say, Wait a minute, I've got something to say here.

MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

CZECH EU PRESIDENCY WEB SITE
http://cordis.europa.eu/czech-republic/presidency/home_en.html

SPEECHES AT MUNICH SECURITY COUNCIL - AUDIO,TEXT (ALL)
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/reden.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&jahr=2009&

Speaker: de Hoop Scheffer, Jaap
Function: Secretary General of NATO, Brussels
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=234&

Speaker: Sarkozy, Nicolas
Function: President, Paris
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=237&

Speaker: Steinmeier, Frank-Walter
Function: Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=223&

Speaker: Vondra, Dr. Alexandr
Function: Vice Prime Minister for European Affairs, Prague
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=233&

Speaker: MacKay, Peter
Function: Minister of National Defence, Ottawa
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=258&

Speaker: Biden, Joseph R.
Function: Vice President, Washington
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=238&

Speaker: Hutton, John
Function: Secretary of State for Defence, London
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=263&

Speaker: Merkel, Dr. Angela
Function: Federal Chancellor, Berlin
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=236&

Speaker: Larijani, Dr. Ali
Function: Speaker of the Majlis, Tehran
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=226&

MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE SPEECHES HIGHLIGHTS

Speaker: Kissinger, Dr. Henry
Function: Former U.S. Secretary of State, New York
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=224&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
2/06/2009 KISSINGER

Over 200 years ago, the philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the ultimate choice before mankind: World history would ultimately culminate in universal peace either by moral insight or by catastrophe of a magnitude that left humanity no other choice.

Our period is approaching having that choice imposed on it. The basic dilemma of the nuclear age has been with us since Hiroshima: how to bring the destructiveness of modern weapons into some moral or political relationship with the objectives that are being pursued. Any use of nuclear weapons is certain to involve a level of casualties and devastation out of proportion to foreseeable foreign policy objectives. Efforts to develop a more nuanced application have never succeeded, from the doctrine of a geographically limited nuclear war of the 1950s and 1960s to the mutual assured destruction theory of general nuclear war of the 1970s. In office, I recoiled before the options produced by the prevalent nuclear strategies, which raised the issue of the moral right to inflict a disaster of such magnitude on society and the world. Moreover, these prospects were generated by weapons for which there could not be any operational experience, so that calculations and limitations were largely theoretical. But I was also persuaded that if the U.S. government adopted such restraints, it would be turning over the world’s security to the most ruthless and perhaps genocidal. In the two-power world of the Cold War, the adversaries managed to avoid this dilemma. The nuclear arsenals on both sides grew in number and sophistication. Except for the Cuban missile crisis, when a Soviet combat division was initially authorized to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself, neither side approached their use, either against each other or in wars against non-nuclear third countries. They put in place step-by-step a series of safeguards to prevent accidents, misjudgments and unauthorized launches.

But the end of the Cold War produced a paradoxical result: the threat of nuclear war between the nuclear superpowers has essentially disappeared. But the spread of technology -- especially peaceful nuclear energy -- has multiplied the feasibility of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability by separating plutonium or from enriching the uranium produced by peaceful nuclear reactors. The sharpening of ideological dividing lines and the persistence of unresolved regional conflicts have magnified the incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, especially by rogue states or non-state actors. The calculations of mutual insecurity that produced restraint during the Cold War do not apply with anything like the same degree to the new entrants in the nuclear field and even less so to the non-state actors. Proliferation of nuclear weapons has become an overarching strategic problem for the contemporary period. Any further spread of nuclear weapons multiplies the possibilities of nuclear confrontation; it magnifies the danger of diversion, deliberate or unauthorized. Thus if proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues into Iran and remains in North Korea in the face of all ongoing negotiations, the incentives for other countries to follow the same path could become overwhelming. And how will publics react if they suffer or even observe casualties in the tens of thousands in a nuclear attack? Will they not ask two questions: What could we have done to prevent this? What shall we do now so that it can never happen again? Considerations as these induced former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of State George Shultz and I -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- to publish recommendations for systematically reducing and eventually eliminating the danger from nuclear weapons. We have a record of strong commitment to national defense and security. We continue to affirm the importance of adequate deterrent forces, and we do not want our recommendations to diminish essentials for the defense of free peoples while a process of adaptation to new realities is going on. At the same time, we reaffirm the objective of a world without nuclear weapons that has been proclaimed by every American president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Such a world will prove increasingly remote unless the emerging nuclear weapons program in Iran and the existing one in North Korea are overcome. Both involve the near-certainty of further proliferation and of further incorporation of nuclear weapons into the strategies of nuclear weapons states. In the case of Iran, the permanent members of the Security Council have called for an end to the enrichment of materials produced by the program for peaceful uses of atomic energy. In the case of North Korea, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States have demanded the elimination of nuclear weapons. North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program but, by procrastinating in its implementation, threatens to create a legitimacy for the stockpile it has already achieved. I have long advocated negotiations with Iran on a broad front, including the geopolitical aspect. Too many treat this as a kind of psychological enterprise. In fact, it will be tested by concrete answers to four specific questions: (a) How close is Iran to a nuclear weapons capability? (b) At what pace is it moving? (c) What balance of rewards and penalties will move Iran to abandon it? (d) What do we do if, despite our best efforts, diplomacy fails? A critical issue in nonproliferation strategy will be the ability of the international community to place the fuel cycle for the material produced by the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under international control. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) capable of designing a system which places the enrichment and reprocessing under international control and in locations that do not threaten nuclear proliferation?

A NEW AGENDA

Arresting and then reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons places a special responsibility on the established nuclear powers. They share no more urgent common interest than preventing the emergence of more nuclear-armed states. The persistence of unresolved regional conflicts makes nuclear weapons a powerful lure in many parts of the world to intimidate neighbors and serve as a deterrent to the great powers who might otherwise intervene in a regional conflict. Established nuclear powers should strive to make a nuclear capability less enticing by devoting their diplomacy to diffuse unresolved conflicts that today make a nuclear arsenal so attractive.A new nuclear agenda requires coordinated efforts on several levels: first, the declaratory policy of the United States; second, the U.S.-Russian relationship; third, joint efforts with allies as well as other non-nuclear states relying on American deterrence; fourth, securing nuclear weapons and materials on a global basis; and, finally, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the doctrines and operational planning of nuclear weapons states.The Obama administration has already signaled that a global nuclear agenda will be a high priority in preparation for the Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty scheduled for the spring of 2010. A number of measures can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with Russia to reduce the preemptive risk of certain alert measures and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

-- Russian Relations: For over 30 years after the formation of the Western Alliance, the Russian threat was the motivating and unifying force in Western nuclear policy. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up, it is important to warn against the danger of basing policy on a self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia and the United States between them control around 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have it in their control to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in their bilateral relationship. They have already done so for 15 years on such issues as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The immediate need is to start negotiations to extend the START I agreement, the sole document for the verification and monitoring of established ceilings on strategic weapons, which expires at the end of 2009. That should be the occasion to explore significant reductions from the 1,700 to 2,000 permitted under the Moscow Treaty of 2002. A general review of the strategic relationship should examine ways to enhance security at nuclear facilities in Russia and the United States. A key issue has been missile defense -- especially with respect to defenses deployed against threats from proliferating countries. The dialogue on this subject should be resumed at the point at which it was left by President George W. Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin in April 2008. The Russian proposal for a joint missile defense toward the Middle East, including radar sites in southern Russia, has always seemed to me a creative political and strategic answer to a common problem.

-- Allies: The effort to develop a new nuclear agenda must involve our allies from its inception. U.S. and NATO policy are integrally linked. Key European allies are negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue. America deploys tactical nuclear weapons in several NATO countries, and NATO’s declaratory policy mirrors that of the United States. Britain and France -- key NATO allies -- have their own nuclear deterrent. A common adaptation to the emerging realities is needed, especially with respect to tactical nuclear weapons. Parallel discussions are needed with Japan, South Korea and Australia. Parallel consultations are imperative with China, India and Pakistan. It must be understood that the incentives for nuclear weapons on the subcontinent are more regional then those of the established nuclear powers and their threshold for using them considerably lower.The complexity of these issues explains why my colleagues and I have chosen an incremental, step-by-step approach. We are not able to describe the characteristics of the final goal: how to determine the size of all stockpiles, how to eliminate them or to verify the result. Affirming the desirability of the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, we have concentrated on the steps that are achievable and verifiable. My colleague, Sam Nunn, has described the effort as akin to climbing a mountain shrouded in clouds. We cannot describe its top or be certain that there may not be unforeseen and perhaps insurmountable obstacles on the way. But we are prepared to undertake the journey in the belief that the summit will never come into view unless we begin the ascent and deal with the proliferation issues immediately before us, including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

A closing word: A subject at first largely dominated by military experts has increasingly attracted the commitment of disarmament advocates. The dialogue between them has not always been as fruitful as it should be. Strategists are suspicious of negotiated attempts to limit the scope of weapons. Disarmament advocates occasionally seek to preempt the outcome of the debate by legislating restrictions that achieve their preferred result without reciprocity -- on the theory that anything that limits nuclear arsenals, even unilaterally, is desirable in and of itself.The two groups need to be brought together. So long as other countries build and improve their nuclear arsenals, deterrence of their use needs to be part of Western strategy. The efficiency of our weapons arsenals must be preserved. The program sketched here is not a program for unilateral disarmament. Both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, while endorsing this approach, also made it clear, in President Obama’s words, that the United States cannot implement it alone.

The danger posed by nuclear weapons is unprecedented. They should not be integrated into strategy as simply another more efficient explosive. We thus return to our original challenge. Our age has stolen the fire from the gods; can we confine it to peaceful purposes before it consumes us?

Speaker: Schäuble, Dr. Wolfgang Function: Federal Minister of the Interior, Berlin
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=251&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 SCHAUBLE

Although the term governance as it is used today has not been around for very long, it describes an old social reality and an old phenomenon: that policy decisions are made not by government bodies alone, but are always also influenced by non-state, civil society actors.The term governance expresses the fact that state structures, whose legitimacy and authority are governed by a constitution, are assisted in their decision-making by informal structures. What is new is our unfinished search for a global governance.(World Government)

[Globalization: Altered challenges]

In 1989, hardly anyone was talking about globalization. Europe and Germany were still divided by the Iron Cur­tain, although globalization, like governance, had already been around for a long time, of course. But the world and the perception threat have fundamentally changed since then.Borders between nation-states are growing less and less important, as is the distinction between internal and ex­ternal security. Policy-makers are forced to react appro­priately to the shrinking significance of borders as well as to their active removal.There is no longer a confrontation between the Eastern Bloc and the West, no more balance of terror. These have been replaced by countless asymmetries, the si­multaneity of the non-simultaneous (Ernst Bloch).Such asymmetries can shake the foundations of our world order, for example the global economic imbalances between the US, Europe and Asia that have contributed to the ongoing global financial and economic crisis. But in the field of security politics we also have asymmetric conflicts, failing states and ever more powerful non-state actors – such as international terrorism. We are therefore facing altered security challenges: or­ganized cross-border crime, global migration flows, cyber crime and cyber warfare against the information infra­structures of private companies or governments, just to mention a few of the threats.

The Internet and other media permeated national borders long ago. After all, globalization means first of all an in­crease in information, communication and mutual de­pendence.

[International terrorism as a phenomenon of global­ization]

One of the greatest challenges for security authorities around the world is international terrorism. In fact, the structure and activities of international terrorism depend on globalization, without which terrorism could not be so efficient or brutal.Terrorists take advantage of media networks with their global coverage and rapid response times to spread their inhuman messages made available on video or the Internet. The Internet serves as a communications platform, advertising medium, distance university and think-tank all rolled into one.The strategy of international terrorism is to undermine the legitimacy of government authority by demonstrating any government's impotence in the face of cruel attacks. For this demonstration to succeed, media are needed to transmit the message.At the same time, terrorist networks exploit regional or re­ligious conflicts for their own inhuman aims, as demon­strated most recently by the horrific attacks in Mumbai. Here too, those who planned and organized the attacks placed the media impact of terrorism at the top of their agenda.International terrorism needs globalization. To put it in the language of criminology: Globalization provides motives and promotes opportunities.

[Importance of international cooperation]

No nation can face these immense new challenges alone. This is why the entire global community depends on ef­fective cooperation today more than ever.We need close, trusting cooperation in bilateral partner­ships and supra-national organizations such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union.We still have plenty of options in this regard. I am con­vinced there is still room for improvement in key areas of intra-governmental and supra-national cooperation.Now that almost everyone agrees that unilateral meas­ures hardly yield satisfying results today, we must come to multilateral decisions within the framework of our exist­ing partnerships and alliances, and then carry out these decisions multilaterally as well - by military means, if ab­solutely necessary, or increasingly by using police.Up to now, the tendency has been for others to decide multilaterally what the United States is then supposed to do unilaterally. That can't be right.Anyone who thinks we have nothing to do with Afghani­stan and that everything would be fine if we just stayed within our own national borders does not understand how globalization works. Globalization means that no one is an island; instead, every country must do its utmost so that international terrorism does not reach it too one day.We Europeans must learn how to speak with one voice -preferably on the single telephone number for Europe that Henry Kissinger looked for in vain. And we must learn to see the European Union not as a rival to the United States, but as a stable pillar within the transatlantic alli­ance.We need the cooperation of NGOs, private companies, welfare organizations, churches and religious groups, citi­zens' initiatives, charitable foundations and aid organiza­tions. If we want to strive for the lofty ideal of global gov­ernance, we must work together with such non-state ac­tors in a mostly informal but cooperative and productive network.

[How realistic is global governance?]

Admittedly, global governance today is more a guiding star than political reality. And as attractive as the concept of global governance is, there are still some unanswered questions.These are above all questions of transparency, efficiency and democratic legitimacy. Even powerful, globally active NGOs play only an advocacy role and often have no mandate, not even from those they claim to represent.Global governance depends on a willingness to engage in dialogue, on the sincerity and trustworthiness of all actors. It requires a certain amount of consensus and rules which all participants agree to abide by. And we know that the reliability of international agreements and conventions can sometimes be a problem.Making it easier at least for state actors to take part in global governance would require urgent changes to inter­national law, which is still largely based on realities that have long ceased to exist. To give you one example: We must ask ourselves whether existing international law is still adequate to deal with the new threats posed by international terrorism. This is why I launched the Schwielowsee dialogue, named for a beautiful lake south-west of Berlin. In this dialogue, we are talking with our counterparts in the U.S. and key European partner states about possible new instruments of international law to counter the terrorist threat. This dia­logue also addresses issues of extra-territorial self-defence in counter-terrorism and preventive measures which are in full compliance with the international legal framework to protect human rights.By the way, I do not view global governance as a step to­wards a global state or a world government. Global coop­eration is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own, nor can the entire in­ternational community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work together to find appro­priate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.

Speaker: Miliband, David
Function: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, London
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=243&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MILIBAND

There are two distinct debates about European security today.

The first is about security in its conventional sense. It is about concern for territorial integrity and protection of state sovereignty. In parts of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, countries remain suspicious of their neighbours; or nationalist tensions threaten internal cohesion. Such fears are real, and they reate a potent sense of insecurity. In Bosnia and Kosovo people are still struggling to escape ethnic divides and heal the scars of bloody conflict. The conflict in Georgia last summer showed how vulnerable individual states are when there is a breakdown in respect for basic principles like peaceful resolution of conflicts. The second debate is about new threats to our security; above all terrorism, but also the impact of the global economic downturn, climate change and energy security. Thanks to the post war recipe of collective defence and economic integration, much of Europe no longer has any reason to fear conventional conflict. Yet the paradox is that while our nations are more peaceful and prosperous than ever, our citizens still do not feel secure. Why? Because they know how the breakdown in law and order in Pakistan or Afghanistan can threaten their security - in London, Hamburg or Istanbul. They understand that without rapid action to secure a stable, global climate, untold damage could be done to our planet - and our way of life. They know that the threats we face are global - and that it is increasingly difficult for the individual nation state alone to provide the protection and security they seek. Europe's security architecture therefore needs to address both new global fears and our traditional concerns. And it needs to build on the systems and institutions that proved themselves over the last few decades - NATO, the EU, the OSCE, the UN and the Council of Europe - while reaching out to forge new relationships to underpin our stability and prosperity.

NATO provides a commitment to collective defence. The Article 5 Guarantee and the integrated military structures reassure each and every one of our Allies that their borders are inviolable. Backed by the political and military might of 26 democracies, including Canada and crucially the US, it is a commitment that builds confidence at home and allows us to focus on addressing new threats abroad. This is a significant change. The post-cold war reality demands a more expeditionary and more comprehensive approach; because we have learned from bitter experience how instability abroad can lead to insecurity at home. So NATO was right to act to reverse Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. At stake was not just the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, but the stability of central Europe. And NATO troops are now engaged in Afghanistan to deny Al Qaeda a base from which to launch attacks of the kind we saw on 9/11. This is a real test for NATO. We'll be talking about this in tomorrow's session when my colleague John Hutton will be speaking. Suffice to say here that it demands not just new capabilities and technologies, but troops trained for irregular or asymmetrical warfare. The sacrifice is enormous. But we should be in no doubt that if we leave before the Afghan authorities - especially the Afghan National Army that Coalition and NATO forces are training - are able to defend themselves, the Taleban will be back, and the country will once again become a haven for those who seek to do us harm. It is also of course a test for the EU. The EU began as a bargain over coal and steel to prevent another Franco-German war. Sixty years on it is the world's most successful experiment in pooling sovereignty and promoting intergovernmental cooperation. It has shown how collective action can enhance national and global security. It has charted a course for regional cooperation between small and medium sized states. It has become a model power - those who are near us, want to join us. And some of those who are far away, want to imitate us. And it is a test for the EU and NATO together. They are complementary, grappling with the same security challenges. As President Sarkozy says, NATO is an Alliance between Europeans as well as between Europe and the US. We need them to work together seamlessly.

But as the world changes, so must the EU. It must modernize and adapt. It must turn its attention to the wider range of insecurities. Take energy for example: if we want to secure our energy supplies, we need a properly functioning internal market, more interconnections between countries, more diverse sources, secure routes of supply and ambitious action to drive a global low-carbon revolution. The EU needs to stand for open markets at home and abroad. And if we are to address insecurity and instability beyond our borders, we need to use the accession process and partnership arrangements to encourage political and economic reform. But we must also develop the hard edge of our external action. Be it tackling piracy in the Gulf of Aden, building the Palestinian security services in the West Bank, or training police in Kosovo. The EU is showing how its instruments add real value to our security, provided that NATO and the EU work co-operatively to support each other's efforts. I have talked about institutions. But however much European security may today be defined by cooperation within Europe, our alliance with the US and our relationship with Russia remain at the heart of the European security debate. The West has spent the last twenty years seeking partnership with Russia. It has never sought to encircle, threaten or weaken it. Yet whatever our intentions, the perception in Moscow is different. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that Russia feels uncomfortable with the current European security arrangements. There is a clear deficit of trust that we must work together to overcome. So we welcome President Medvedev's call for a debate about the future of European Security. In taking this debate forward we should be pursuing our mutual interest in resolving and preventing conflict in Europe, tackling WMD proliferation, combating organised crime and addressing the threat from extremism. This enterprise can only be successful if we work to a shared understanding of what security means. Though we must also be clear; this does not undermine our commitment to leave the door to NATO membership open for those who desire it. Its starting point needs to be an acceptance of the fundamental principles of territorial integrity, democratic governance and international law, and recognition that, in the 21st century, breaking these principles will have serious consequences. It needs to embrace a wide definition of security: not just military security and state sovereignty, but economic, energy and climate security, human security and human rights. And it should take place across Europe's enduring security institutions - including the OSCE, EU and NATO - which have served us well and must not be undermined. Which brings me to the US and the Transatlantic relationship. European and North American interests - political, economic and military - are very closely aligned. We all believe that liberty, equality and justice are the foundations of peace and prosperity. And we know that when we act together, we have an unrivalled ability to shape the world around us. Yet ours is a relationship that has been strained b divisions over Iraq and more recently questions of burden-sharing, leading to talk of a two tier alliance.

This is the moment for us to renew the alliance. Because as global power becomes more diffuse we will need each other more. And because President Obama has signalled that he wants to intensify our partnership. As he said in Berlin In this century...America needs a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. If Europe wants to work with the new Administration, if it wants to re-energise multilateralism for the 21st century, it needs to show that we are not just a partner of historical choice but a partner of future choice too. We need to invest in the alliance, and not just support from the sidelines. That means practising what we preach. It means taking the difficult decisions not just the easy ones. And it means being willing and able to combine hard and soft power in a credible way. We welcome US willingness to talk to Iran. But if Iran doesn't respond we will need to be read to impose much tougher sanctions, even if that imposes costs on us here in Europe. In this instance, nuclear security must come above commercial interests. We also need to work much harder to generate military and civilian resources if we are to continue to be taken seriously as an international player. And we need to sweep away the obstacles to genuine NATO/EU partnership, in strategic dialogue, but also in practical co-operation. This includes developing a common approach which makes all of us, including Russia, feel more secure, rather than just talking about it. And we - and I include the UK here - need to show that we want to be not just bilateral partners of the US but also European partners. The backdrop to all discussions of European security in 2009 will inevitably be the economic downturn. This is strengthening two opposing political forces. The first is for countries to turn inwards. The second is multilateralism: people recognise that unless countries can work together we will be powerless to respond to the great challenges of our time. Europe has a central role to play in ensuring that the latter wins out over the former. We have spent sixty years fine tuning our own multilateral institutions. Both NATO and the EU are remarkable success stories. Now we need to turn outwards, renewing old alliances but also reaching out to new partners. Using our collective power and influence to forge a new era of global cooperation and shared interest. This is the best, indeed the only way to ensure that the peace and prosperity we have enjoyed over the last sixty years will continue for the next.

Speaker: Mahbubani, Prof. Kishore Function: Dean,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=250&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MAHBUBANI

THE need to reform global governance has never been greater. Paradoxically, at a time when the world urgently needs new thinking in global governance, old thinking dominates. The Economist's cover story on global governance in July brilliantly used the image of the Tower of Babel to capture the contradictions and confusion surrounding the global governance debate. Sadly, the essay itself was full of conventional wisdom to the effect that we only need to reform existing global governance institutions. Tinkering will not work. The world has changed fundamentally since 1945 and will change even more radically. We need new thinking, not new tinkering. To arrive at the new thinking, we need to focus on three tensions that have arisen in global governance.The first tension is between the desire to cling to sovereignty and the need to respond to globalisation. Globalisation has changed the world fundamentally. Most new challenges respect no borders. Neither terrorism nor epidemics, financial crises nor environmental challenges, respect borders. None can be solved by any country working alone. At a time when the global village needs to convene global village councils to address these issues, these very institutions are being weakened.

Sadly, the most powerful country in the world, the United States, is allergic to global governance. Strobe Talbott explains this allergy well: 'It is not surprising that talk of global governance should elicit more scepticism, suspicion and sometimes bilious opposition in the US than elsewhere. The more powerful a state is, the more likely its people are to regard the pooling of national authority as an unnatural act.' Paradoxically, the US has the most to gain from good global governance because the richest home in any village has the most to lose from global disorder and instability.The second tension in global governance is between the old and new rising powers. We are coming to the end of two centuries of Western domination of world history. All the new emerging powers are non- Western. Yet, the West continues to be over-represented in existing global institutions. The United Nations' founding fathers wisely created the veto to anchor the great powers in the UN. Sadly, they did not anticipate that the great powers of the day could become the great powers of yesterday. Britain and France could help by giving up their seats in favour of a common European seat. If they did, they would embarrass the Asian powers who are busy undermining one another's bids to gain key seats in global organisations.Similarly, the Group of Eight represents the great powers of yesterday. It maintains a charade of addressing global challenges. This charade is sustained by the Western media, which legitimises the G-8 as a global village council, though it represents only 13.5 per cent of the world's population. Persuading great powers to give up privileged positions will not be easy, unless a new social contract can be created that also serves their long-term interests. The rich Western powers stand to lose the most from global disorder. Hence, it should be in their interest to support a new principle that all new and old powers who want to occupy privileged positions in global organisations should take on responsibilities commensurate with their privileges. Hence, if genocide breaks out in Rwanda or if a financial crisis arises in Asia, all great powers must assume the responsibility to address these challenges.

This approach will also help to resolve the third tension between great power imperatives and the need to reflect the views and interests of the majority of the world's population in global governance. Great powers can no longer dominate global politics as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. The majority of the world's population has gone from being an object of world history to becoming the subject. People want to take greater control of their destinies and not have their views or interests ignored.Hence, any reform of global governance should pay attention to both institutions that respond to great power interests (like the UN Security Council and G-8) and institutions that respond to the universal interests of humanity (like the UN General Assembly).It will not be easy to resolve these three tensions. If we are unable to do so, both rich and poor countries will become losers, and our global village might be destroyed. Therefore, there is an urgent and pressing need to discard old thinking on global governance and prepare new perspectives. Every villager understands the wisdom of this phrase: To protect our home, we must protect the village. Hence, we should say: To protect our country, we must protect the planet.

Speaker: Cuyaubé, Miguel Angel Moratinos
Function: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Madrid
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=246&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MORATINOS

Good morning,

I would like to thank the organization of the Munich Conference on Security (Wehrkunde) for kindly inviting me to take part of this panel. My warmest greetings to all of you with us today in this session, entitled Managing instability: global challenges and the crisis of global governance.Very specially, let me greet and congratulate my fellow panel members: the Japanese Defence Minister, Yasukazu Hamada; the German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble; I also welcome Strobe Talbott, former member of the US Department of State and President of the Brookings Institution. Also with us are Kenneth Roth, the Director of Human Rights Watch; the political scientist, Joseph Nye; and Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.I am very pleased to participate with all of you in this panel as part of the Conference on Security.

I believe that the subject proposed and the composition of this panel are highly significant and that we shall develop a very fruitful analysis. The challenges of governance in the 21st century require us to adopt diverse approaches and to make a variety of contributions and responses, both institutional and in many other areas and disciplines, some of which are represented on this panel (defence, national security, civil society, academics and research, and international politics).All these areas influence and contribute to shape the consensus that is needed to maintain a holistic, systematic and effective perspective within the International Community. Thus, we shall emerge strengthened from the present crises and we shall create and consolidate the new institutions that are needed for today’s world and for that of the future, and which will be applied within ever more complex international relations. This complexity, and the pressure of time that are imposed to us, exceed the bounds of the setting in which most of our international institutions were created after the Second World War.We are now entering a new era, at a turning point in history, and we bear a special political and historical responsibility, that of reshaping the global order. We must undertake a period of reforms, from a position of political consensus and with the inclusion of new actors, to promote confidence and to strengthen the values and principles on which the International Community relies on.In the analysis of international relations, many researchers and experts have made use of scientific theories to explain their complexity and to go beyond traditional analytical and descriptive approaches. The application of concepts such as complexity and uncertainty, with respect to the international system, is one of the great challenges currently facing those responsible for international policy making.Murray Gell-Mann, the great American physicist and Nobel prize winner, affirmed that all systems, including the international one, are complex adaptive systems which acquire information both about their surroundings and about the interaction between the system itself and those surroundings. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of a particle at the same time – and this principle could be applied to our world reality. We often find ourselves in a situation in which it is difficult to determine, at the same time, the reasons, the positions and the possible reactions of an international actor before an unexpected event, because if we attempt to identify and influence one of these variables, this very intervention may alter the others.

The French scientist, Théodore Monod, considered chance to be the key element in all research. The most determinant positive chance in the international arena is that of effective political agreement, which may produce a weakening of extremely negative viewpoints. The absence of creativity and positivism will only lead to the inadequate management of reality, never to its transformation.Nowadays, meeting new challenges is a more complex task than it used to be. We no longer see conventional wars, and conflicts are not resolved by treaties between the victors and the vanquished. We find that classical methods of coercion are no longer sufficient, and that actions require an approach that combines political, social, religious, humanitarian or environmental dimensions. The international system of the 21st century must implement appropriate mechanisms for dealing with unpredictability and uncertainty.In today’s international politics and diplomacy, we should be able to determine probable sequences of events and to prepare possible responses. We need to accurately identify diverse elemental particles (i.e. political, economic and environmental factors), determine their scope of action and combine these with positive, committed chance – that is, the political action taken by governing bodies.

This complex, uncertain outlook should not undermine our enthusiasm in searching for models for the creation of a system of global governance that is capable of addressing global challenges with creativity and effectiveness. Such challenges range from the fight against poverty to the use of nuclear weapons and the threat of climate change, and all of them are of vital importance to the future of mankind and the planet itself.Processes of globalization may have negative side effects, as shown by economic and financial crises and the persistence of hunger and poverty, they require vigorous responses and resolute commitments. The reshaping of the international order will be truly global and successful if all the actors take part in it. In this respect, we must be aware of political changes taking place, in the west and in the east, in the north and in the south; we must include many more technical considerations in the decision-making process; we must make use of social networks as tools for empowerment, and at the same time we must listen more closely to the young people of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to term this new phase, which opens up before us in 2009, a global constitutive moment. In Spain, we believe that it is necessary to look beyond the current difficulties to address this constitutive moment in a spirit of confidence and optimism for the future. This global constitutive moment is not limited to the consideration of individual issues, but refers to broad sectors of international relations. For this reason, in addition to economic governance, we must consider political and security-oriented governance and the management of new global challenges.In order to re-establish economic and financial governance, we must incorporate regulatory and control mechanisms. Civil society throughout the world is calling for pro-active intervention in globalization by the politicians, and this has been highlighted by political leaders in all five continents. In Spain, we have always recognized the creativity of free enterprise and of the market, but we have also maintained that the role of the State is essential to uphold the role of law and to defend fundamental values.This comprehensive approach has led us to become the eighth largest economy in the world, according to World Bank data. I believe that the G20 meeting held in Washington should set a precedent for advancing a process of far-reaching reforms of mechanisms for regulating the international economy, based on principles such as transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, as well as solidarity and respect for the environment. Spain is prepared to shoulder its responsibility in this process .We must also reinforce governance regarding political and security issues. The initial aim is to increase our own security, that of the nation States, but we are aware of the dependence of the latter on many different international scenarios. After centuries of bitter warfare, Europe and other areas in the world have enjoyed over 60 years of peace. So, in Europe we know that peace among peoples can be achieved – Kant’s “perpetual peace” - and we also know that it generates economic, social and cultural benefits, while at the same time leading us to disarmament. Unfortunately, large parts of Africa and the Middle East are still suffering the ravages of war, and here in Europe we must make all possible effort, with both local and external actors, to change this situation.

The Government of Spain has no doubt that the new United States Administration, under President Barack Obama, will make a fundamental contribution to world peace. But this is a collective task, in which Americans and Europeans must work side by side. And side by side, too, with Ibero-america and Africa in constructing an Atlantic axis of peace and progress – of a New West.In order for peace to prevail, the UN Security Council must play the central role specified for it in the UN Charter. Although there exist different positions regarding its reform, I am sure that the main criterion that will eventually be applied is the one set out in Article 23 of the Charter: the members of the Security Council must be elected with due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization. Greater contributions in this respect require greater participation within the Council.In these early years of the 21st century, we have still not managed to achieve the ambitions of disarmament that were born after the end of the Cold War. An effective policy of disarmament and non-proliferation (currently of vital importance, when there still remains the danger of terrorist groups gaining access to weapons of mass destruction) would constitute an effective instrument for security and for increasing trust. International terrorism will continue to be one of the fundamental threats in our time. In this case, too, the necessary response is that of greater unity and global governance. We can and must regain the spirit of international solidarity that flowered spontaneously after the attacks of September 11th, cooperating through multilateral frameworks and initiatives which, like the Global Convention against Terrorism, are aimed at addressing this phenomenon in all its complexity, placing above all other considerations that of strict respect for human rights and international laws.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
At present, the world is undergoing conflicts both old and new, although the paradigm continues to be that in the Middle East, because it contains elements from the past (peace, territories, sovereignty, etc.) together with new ones, such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and religious radicalization. Moreover, this conflict influences and determines to a considerable extent the development of international relations. The use of military means alone is not the way to reach a solution where a global approach is needed to encompass political and diplomatic action. This reality obliges us to reconstruct the dynamics of negotiation in order to banish violence forever from our world, which is bleeding of incomprehension and pain.A few weeks ago, at Sharm-el-Sheikh, we renewed our commitment to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict and to work for the reconstruction of Gaza. There have been over fifty years of suffering and desperation, fifty years of calling for a definitive solution, fifty years of the inability of the international community to achieve a peaceful, viable state of Palestine, to put an end to the violence and the terror against Israel, to reactivate the Madrid Process, which began 20 years ago, or to consolidate conversations between Syria and Israel. Our Arab and Israeli friends know that we shall always support them in their quest for peace and security in the region. The EU has an important role to play in this effort and I believe that NATO, together with other actors, could be called upon to play a role in resolving this conflict, which must not be allowed to remain at an impasse any longer.The European Union and NATO must work jointly to maintain peace and security. Both organizations are aware of the need to adapt their instruments to the global challenges they face in the 21st century. This fact underlies the importance we grant to the dimension of security and defence in the EU. And also the importance of our considerations regarding the possible updating of NATO's Strategic Concept. I believe the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit next April will provide a good opportunity for opening up the debate as to how the Alliance can adapt to the world of the 21st century.

This updating of the Strategic Concept must be based on the understanding that security should be broad-based, indivisible and cooperative. Such broad-based security must include the “global approach” that we are already seeking to apply in EU and NATO peacekeeping missions, with the necessary involvement of many and diverse actors. Such security must be indivisible, taking into account the legitimate security interests of all involved, and thus promote mutual trust. And such security must be cooperative, founded upon multilateral frameworks of dialogue and cooperation.Global governance would not be complete without including in the equation the creation of a fairer, more sustainable world order, one more committed to basic human rights. As well as the traditional threats and risks, there are other global menaces which are of more diffuse origin but affect us all. Extreme poverty not only affects human, regional and global security, provoking unstoppable migratory movements. It is also an affront to the dignity of those excluded, and shames the conscience of the developed world. In the interrelation between the challenges of hunger and poverty, and the global economic model and security, we must also consider the degradation of the environment and the effects of climate change, which, logically, are interwoven with the concept of human security.At this point, I believe it is time to speak also of cultural governance. President Obama’s speech reflected the multicultural nature of the United States, and the end of an era, raising hopes for the development of intercultural dialogue. The world is intercultural. In this respect, the United Nations Organization has taken a decisive step with the creation of a new pillar – the intercultural pillar, and an instrument, the Alliance of Civilizations, that is receiving more and more support every day.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Spain is responsive to the new framework of global governance and is fully involved in the resolution of global challenges, though its steadfast social and political commitment, arising from its geostrategic position in the world. We are located at a geographic and historical crossroads, between Europe, America, the Mediterranean and Africa. And we maintain a long-standing tradition of ties with Asian countries, a tradition that has been renewed in recent years. Spain seeks to become a global actor, committed to global governance.Spanish society has provided irrefutable evidence that it is generous and open to the world. The Government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has increased Spain’s official development assistance more than that of any other country, and has provided concrete evidence of its commitment to international peace; moreover, it has welcomed millions of migrants from all over the world, and has promoted interregional dialogue through initiatives such as the Alliance of Civilizations, and with our partners in Africa and the Americas. When this Security Conference meets again in 2010, Spain will, just a few weeks before, have begun its six-month Presidency of the European Union. I trust that when we do so the Lisbon Treaty will be fully implemented. Nevertheless, be that as it may, we shall demonstrate, once again, our commitment to building a Europe that is ever more closely integrated and prepared to work with the United States and other partners to achieve solutions to common challenges. Europe must trust more in the future in order to become a coherent global actor, with a model equipped to provide suitable responses to the challenges of global governance.For all these reasons, Spain stands willing to assume its responsibilities in global decision-making forums, and I can assure you that we are well aware of the compatibility between national interests and those of the international community. National policies based on isolationism and protectionism are ineffective in achieving global governance, being only a mirage reflecting mistrust and a distorted, obsolete image of the way ahead for the international community and for humankind.Thank you very much.

Speaker: Hamada, Yasukazu
Function: Defence Minister, Tokyo
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=247&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 HAMADA

Mr. Talbott,Distinguished panelists,Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor to speak before such a distinguished audience as the first Minister of Defense of Japan to participate in this famed conference. I would like to take this opportunity to offer some remarks on the lessons learned from recent collective efforts against global challenges and key factors for enhanced international cooperation.With growing mutual dependence among nations, we come to face more and more acute global challenges, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, and global warming. None of these challenges can be solved by any single nation alone. Consolidated efforts based upon international cooperation have become increasingly important in order to acquire strong legitimacy for responses against such challenges.Our collective efforts have indeed achieved a certain degree of success; however, considering the nature of addressing global challenges, it is imperative to take a more comprehensive response to secure global governance. Recent experiences suggest several key factors are needed for the success of such an endeavor:

First, to formulate and implement a concerted and comprehensive strategy;

Second, to consider an optimal combination of military and civil assets;

Third, to communicate well with the local community and strategically publicize our efforts in order to obtain wide support from the local population, our fellow citizens, and the international community.These are precisely in line with lessons learned from Japan’s involvement in Iraq. I believe three points contributed to the effective implementation of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance by the Ground Self-Defense Force. They include, first, respect for the local population and efforts to meet their needs, in collaboration with development assistance; second, winning respect from the local people through demonstration of strict discipline and professionalism; and third, close communication and cooperation with international partners.In addition, we cannot overlook the importance of credible military power. Self-reliance and mutual support are keywords in addressing common security challenges as well. Every country must make its best proactive efforts to deal with global challenges. At the same time, every country faces constraints in financial and human resources or from an institutional standpoint; thus the entire international community must be there to fill in the holes.In this regard, I am aware that Japan has the potential to contribute even further to international peace. We have therefore been improving the capacity of the Self-Defense Forces for international peace cooperation activities by establishing high-readiness units and new training systems. Furthermore, the Government of Japan is striving to build a national consensus for legislation necessary for our broader involvement in global security issues.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The international community has never before been in more need of the spirit of cooperation. Relations between Japan and the countries of Europe, as well as NATO, are becoming increasingly important as partners to tackle global challenges in such a spirit.We have already worked together in multinational operations in Iraq and the Indian Ocean. I also see another excellent upcoming opportunity for coordination in taking measures against acts of piracy.I would like to conclude my remarks by expressing my sincere desire for closer cooperation in the field of security between Japan and the countries of Europe, as well as with NATO.Thank you very much.

Speaker: Solana Madariaga, Dr. Javier Function: EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Brussels
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=235&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 SOLANA

I would like to start by thanking the Munich Security Conference, and the German government, for the invitation. The Wehrkunde has a special place on the international calendar. This is even more relevant this year. For we are also meeting at the start of a new US administration. A full team of top US leaders is with us today. There are many urgent problems that demand our attention. They are captured in the rather ambitious title of our session: NATO, Russia, Oil and Gas and the Middle East: the future of European security. That is rather a lot to cover in a short intervention. Let me first focus on the last element: European security as such.We tend to believe that security inside Europe is largely completed. Of course we know many threats remain. But we see them as coming from other parts of the world: the Middle East, Africa, South Asia. Or that they are really global in nature: climate change, non-proliferation or poverty. And it is fair to say that no other region in the world has anything that comes close to our security order: a sophisticated blend of rules and institutions. Its most important feature is its comprehensive character: co-operation in all the three baskets of hard security, economics and human rights. That was a vision that we have to retain; and that we have still to fully achieved.Moreover, it is quite clear that among the three pillars of the pan-European security order - US, Europe, Russia - one of them feels uncomfortable in it. For whatever the reasons. But President Medvedev's proposals are a clear signal in that respect. It is in all our interest to analyse why - and see what can be done.

Let me begin with the diagnosis:

Last year, we had a real war between two OSCE countries. The war in Georgia was a massive breach of a core principle we hold dear: the non-use of violence to settle conflicts. Other, not-so-frozen conflicts simmer and could erupt into violence.The EU and NATO still keep 20.000 people deployed in the Balkans. Security and stability in that part of our Continent are not yet self-sustaining.At the start of the year we saw, yet again, a major gas dispute between our most important supplier and our most important transit partner. To people across Europe trying to keep warm, this did not look like a purely commercial dispute. Several treaties and agreements, take the CFE Treaty or the Energy Charter, are not functioning as they should. The economic crisis is encouraging some to follow the dangerous way of protectionism. As if we had learnt nothing from history.Certainly, no new Cold War is in the making, but all this is taking place against a wider backdrop of distrust.There is a paradox in all this. Never before have so many people worked to promote overall European security. Countless meetings are held in every conceivable format: bi-lateral and multilateral, formal and informal, among governments and with those outside.

But while meet often, there is less trust among us.

And there is an apparent contradiction: in recent years, co-operation between the US, Europe and Russia on some of the most difficult global issues has been positive. Take Iran, the Middle East Peace Process or non-proliferation and terrorism. Of course I hope this continues. And that it will be expanded to the financial crisis and climate change. But closer to home, things have been more difficult. No wonder: many times it seems easier to be strategic partners than good neighbours.With Russia we share a continent and a history. But our respective memories are very different.

Take the 1990s. For us, these were years of liberation and integration. But for many Russians, these were years of decline. To try to understand mindset is not the same as condoning the actions that follow that logic. For us, the idea of Russia feeling threatened is absurd. But for Russia, apparently, that is the case. Russia should understand how small countries feel vulnerable beside a giant neighbour. And that in today's world it's not a good sign if you have difficult relations with many of your neighbours. All of us should ask whether it makes sense to still have people and resources geared towards planning for conflict scenarios among us, rather than towards addressing common threats together. Whether there is not more scope for disarmament. At a time of financial crisis, these questions are even more relevant.

Now, President Medvedev proposals. They are still to be precise further. But the underlying ideas deserve to be taken seriously. And engagement in a debate is in itself a road to build trust.

Some principles under-pinning European security are non-negotiable: that we do it with the US; that countries are free to choose their alliance; and that we reject notions such as spheres of privileged influence. Russia knows all this. Just as it knows that there are many elements we can work with: the primacy of international law. Calls for legally binding instruments and more transparency are good too. Not just in political and military terms, but also for energy and gas. The point here is not to offer a detailed set of parameters. But that we should engage in this discussion. And that we should have a positive agenda which is about more than let's preserve what we have.What we have has produced unparalleled results in terms of peace and security. It is immensely valuable - but not perfect. Our goal should be that all three pillars of European security feel comfortable with and attached to whatever order we have.The advent of a new US administration offers new opportunities.

Let me close with one final thought:

For all the talk of rising powers and Asian centuries, we should not forget the centrality of US, Europe and Russia as the leading players for global security. Those three agreeing is often a necessary, even if it's not a sufficient condition, to get things done around the world. That is another reason to secure our base. That means these three pillars working as much as possible together on security across our own Continent.

Speaker: Ivanov, Sergey B. Function: First Deputy Prime Minister, Russian Federation
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=232&

Non-proliferation of WMD. The case for joint effort
02/06/2009 IVANOV

Mr.Chairman,Ladies and gentlemen,Excellencies,

May I, as one of Munich old-timers, wish every success to the Conference and specifically to Mr. Ischinger in his capacity of its new Chairman. The level of participation and the way we have started to-day show that Munich Conference on Security Policy remains an international forum of a very high standard.

Dear colleagues,

Russia has invariably favored strengthening the UN role in maintaining peace, international security and stability, working out strategies to counter modern challenges and threats affecting all states without exception. Our priority remains to ensure integrity, viability and effectiveness of the international legal basis, regulating the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. The major international agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CNDN), treaties on the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons presume the need for universalization and attaining through joint effort their unconditional implementation. We stress the fundamental importance to guarantee openness of the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms to ensure participation, on equal footing, of the countries showing interest and capability to make a meaningful contribution to the process.

The START I treaty, which has played a historic role in nuclear missile disarmament, is due to expire on December the 5th , 2009. It is time we move further. In 2005, we invited the US to conclude a new arrangement to replace it. We believe that it should be legally binding and provide for further reductions and limitations both of strategic delivery vehicles (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) and their warheads.It is crucial to make a good use of the tested-by-time experience of START I treaty while drafting a new arrangement including, in particular, the ban to deploy strategic offensive arms outside national territories. However, our commitment to continue this process in a positive manner should not be translated as refusal from certain major approaches. First and foremost this concerns uploading capability problem. Our point of departure is that any deviation in this sense from basic principles of START Treaty leads to the emergence of uploading capability, which in fact provides means for quick acquiring decisive military superiority in the area of strategic offensive arms.We expect a constructive response of the new US Administration in this matter and generally to our proposals. This will allow to arrive in the foreseeable future at an arrangement which will mark a new substantial step forward along the road to missile and nuclear disarmament. Our principle attitude to the issues of anti-missile defense development remains very much the same. We are confident that the creation and deployment of missile defenses of various types affect directly regional and international security. If one does it unilaterally without due respect of the interests of strategic stability of other parties involved as, for instance, is in the case with fielding of the US missile defense European site, the situation cannot but result in increased tension.

The potential US missile defense European site is not just a dozen of anti-ballistic missiles and a radar. It is a part of the US strategic infrastructure aimed at deterring Russia’s nuclear missile potential. Of course, implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures proposed by Russia with regard to the US missile defense European site might certainly mitigate some of our concerns. However, such measures are not to be considered as an alternative to our response. The Sochi Declaration of the Russian and US Presidents clearly states that Russia is opposed to the deployment of the US missile defense European site. Now a few words about Treaty between the US and the USSR on the elimination of their intermediate range and shorter-range missiles [Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty] (INF).

Generally, the situation here looks, indeed, alarming. During 20 years after signing of the Soviet – American INF Treaty many countries (North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel) have acquired such delivery vehicles. And, by the way, all of them are situated near our borders. That is exactly the reason why the US and Russia have come forward with a joint initiative to ascribe INF multinational nature. As far as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned, our main priority remains to increase the efficiency of the NPT.The next NPT Review Conference will take place as soon as next year. It will become an important landmark in our joint efforts aimed at strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We hope that the year 2010 Conference will be marked with constructive and productive work. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is an important instrument for strengthening the international regime of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms limitation. Russia has ratified the CTBT in year 2000, and has been consistently promoting its early entry into force. Observance of the nuclear tests’ moratorium, however important it might be, is no substitute for legal obligations under the CTBT. We therefore urge all countries whose participation is vital for this Treaty’s entry into force to sign and/or ratify it as soon as possible.Monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is yet another important way of strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We view the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement as an effective tool to enhance potential of the Agency in this respect.

We expect that all countries, which have not yet joined the Protocol, especially those involved in significant nuclear activities or possessing large stocks of nuclear material, will accede to it at the earliest possible stage.Nowadays, there is a growing interest in peaceful nuclear energy as a dependable means to ensure national energy security. In our view, international cooperation in what concerns the nuclear fuel cycle should be promoted aiming at providing a cost-effective and feasible alternative to creating all its elements on the national level. Russia has proposed multilateral cooperation in developing the global infrastructure of the nuclear energy sector and in establishing international centers to provide nuclear fuel cycle services. We have already contributed to the implementation of this initiative by setting up of the International Uranium Enrichment Center on the basis of the processing facilities in Angarsk. The project has already been joined by Kazakhstan, with Armenia and Ukraine finalizing entry formalities. One of the challenges both to the international non-proliferation regime and to the international security as a whole is the threat of nuclear terrorism. Consequently, we regard the Russian-American Global Initiative to Combat Acts of Nuclear Terrorism launched in 2006 by the Presidents of Russian Federation and the United States as a major contribution to the global security. The Initiative is already being implemented and is growing in scale. The number of states participating in the Initiative has reached 75. We consider it to be a good example of how we can cooperate in the modern world in addressing new challenges and threats. On the other hand, the long-lasting reluctance of NATO to bring the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in line with the new realities and expansion of the Alliance - despite certain countries’ security interests, has forced Russia to suspend the Treaty.

At the same time, Russia has proposed a distinct program to restore viability of the European control regime over conventional armaments. Our proposal still applies. We are prepared to continue and intensify the dialogue. And if one believes that the existing control regimes are inadequate (which, indeed, seems to be the case), we should reinforce them. Russia is ready. Until now, our parters’ point of departure was that Russia could be persuaded to make concessions in exchange for the promise to consider its anxieties at a later stage. As President Medvedev has recently stated, national security cannot depend just on promises. In other words, our partners’ approach is based on a false assumption and does not leave many chances for this problem’s early solution. Meanwhile, time factor and some of NATO countries’ own decisions are working against CFE itself. Missile proliferation problem remains the source of our serious concern, which has only multiplied in the absence of control arrangements similar to those of WMD – namely related to WMD delivery vehicles. The situation with small- and medium range missiles’ proliferation – as I have already mentioned – is an obvious demonstration of the fact. Russia favours complex approach to addressing this problem. Our strategic objective is to have a global missile non-proliferation regime based on a legally binding agreement elaborated, in particular, along the lines of the Russian initiative to set up a global missile and missile technology non-proliferation control system. Under auspices of the UN Security Council, we cooperate in the implementation of the Council's resolutions 1540 and 1810 on non-proliferation. And finally, we participate in multilateral export control activities, including Wassenaar arrangements for control of conventional armaments and dual use goods and technologies, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). We are convinced that results of cooperation for the non-proliferation purposes could be better if Russia participated in the Australian Group.

Ladies and gentlemen,

No doubt, WMD non-proliferation regime should be strengthened through international cooperation and leaders here should be naturally USA and Russia. Moscow is ready to work closely with the new Obama Administration. Before I leave this podium may I take the opportunity and suggest that politicians improve their economic thinking in the situation of the global financial and economic crises when the world just cannot afford speeding up expenditure on arms race. And very finally: should we keep the trend when the market conditions improve? Thank you for your attention.

Speaker: Qureshi, Makhdoom Function: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=261&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/08/2009 QURESHI

Your Excellency, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of 45. Munich Security Conference, Excellencies, Distinguished participants, Ladies and Gentleman,It is a matter of great Privilege and honour for me to address the 45. Munich Security Conference, a premier forum for candid deliberations an global security issues.I am grateful for this opportunity to share Pakistan’s views on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan and its future. This ssues is of vital Importance for peace and stability in our region.I wish to thank Abassador Wolfgang Ischinger for this imely and important initiative.To us in Pakistan, Afghanistan holds a special significance. Peace and security of our two countries are interlinked. What afflicts one, invariably impacts the other.For the last three decades, Pakistan has suffered the gravest fallout of the conflict in Afghanistan- Our stakes in its peace and stability are therefore, high.Regrettably, our region, has for far too long, been a victim of history and circumstance. Over time, the troubles of Afghanistan have gone through different phases, morphing into one of the gravest and most serious challenges of our times: the challenge of extremism, militancy and terrorism.

But let’s be very clear. The genesis of the problem goes back to the decade-long foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the deliberate expoitation of religion by the free world to defeat a super power. The legacy of this strategy is now threatening the whole world. We are all equally responsible for it.Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, in 1989, should have been followed by a well thought-out and comprehensive plan, to rebuild the country, within a democratic, pluralistic framework.The international community should have assisted Afghanistan, in reconstructing its devastated physical, social and institutional infrastructure.

The international community should have provided opportunities for education and livelihood to the youth and the freedom fighters. A counrty-wide disarmament process should have been initiated. Instead, the hapless Afghans were all but abandoned.

Flushed with weapons, fired with ideology, and forgotten as the last vestige of a war just won, Afghanistan was left in a crippling security and socio-political vacuum.International neglect, widespread poverty, lack of governance and sustained internecine warfare provided further grounds to the insidious spread of extremism and extremist ideologies. The rise of the Taliban has to be seen in this context. Subsequently, the Taliban were hijacked by Al Quaeda thus creating a dangerous nexus. What followed is history.Pakistan, as a frontline State during the Afghan Jihad could not and did not remain immune to these trends and tragedies unfolding across its western border. The presence in our country of the largest human refugee population in contemporary times stands testimony to this reality.While this dangerous affliction was spreading, silently gnawing at the fabric of our societies, the world looked the other way.Sadly, it took more than 3.000 lives, and a barbaric atrocity of the scale of 9/11 to awaken the world to the gravity of the situation.

The world`s response was prompt and massive. Since then the international community, including NATO has maintained a firm commitment to peace, stability and development of Afghanistan. Pakistan has been an integral and leading partner of this global endeavour.Yet, seven years on, despite having made significant gains, the malady of extremism and terrorism continues to plague the region. It has roots in all countries of the region. The challenge confronting us today is big and complex.A confluence of latent and conflicting interests, invisible hands, covert policies, free flow of arms, money and drugs and misplaced priorities have added to the complexity of the situation. Popular perceptions of longstanding and festering disputes involving the Muslim populations, for example, in the Middle East, Iraq, Kashmir and more recently in Gaza, are further compounding factors. It is time for dispassionate stock-taking. We need to honestly ask ourselves some basic questions:

One: Seven years on whether militancy and terrorism has been reigned in or is in fact spreading. What is the popular perception about the military strategy of the coalition in Afghanistan? Two: What are the underlying causes and rallying points formenting extremism and terrorism? Are these beeing addressed in a meaningful and comprehensive manner? Three: Has international assistance brought about a significant improvement in the lifes of the affected people? Is the international community truly following a broad-based and comprehensive approach to deal with this scourge? After Afghanistan, perhaps no country has suffered more in human and material terms than Pakistan. We lost Benazir Bhuttoto to terrorists. Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis lost their lifes in more than 600 terror related incidents last year alone.Pakistan’s economy has suffered direct and indirect losses of more than $ 35 billion.

In October last year, the Parliament of Pakistan adopted a historic Resolution declaring the Pakistani nation’s unswerving commitment to stand against the threat of terrorism and to address its root causes. This Resolution provides a comprehensive framework for a multi-proged strategy to deal with this serious menace. It also sent a clear message that the territory of Pakistan will not be used for terrorist activities, while our sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.In line withe this resolution, we are pursuing a multiproged strategy with the support, cooperation and owership of local populations.Recent distractions at our eastern frontier notwithstanding, Pakistan is assiduously fulfilling its responsibilities along the western border.The down of democracy in Pakistan has heralded a new era of understanding and cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. With Afghanistan, our democratic government has made a new and promising beginning. This has resulted in restoring trust and confidence and bringing about a fundamental and qualitative transformation in bilateral ties with Afghanistan in all spheres.We have joined hands to move towards our common vision of peace, prosperity and development for our people and the region. During President Asif Ali Zardari’s historic visit to Kabul last month, I had the pleasure of signing, together with Foreign Minister Spanta, a landmark Declaration on Future Directions of Bilateral Cooperation.The Declaration looks beyond the present phase of terrorism, and provides a clear and comprehensive framework to take forward Pakistan-Afghanistan partnership to higher levels, in the political, economic, security and social fields. It is also a manifestation of the aspirations and determination of our people for a better, peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.Creating an implementing projects such as Turkmenistan -Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Gas Pipeline project would create a stake for people living all along the route. A stake, where peace would pay clear dividends.The Jirgagai process, emanating from Kabul Peace Jirga, has been a great success in bringing the representative segments of the people of the two countries together. The Jirgagai meeting held in Islamabad in October last year, made important strides in achieving dual objective of promoting dialogue with the opposition and forging a common agenda for development and people-to-people exchanges. Since then two further meetings of Contact Group of Jirgagai have taken place, achieving positive results.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are resolved to pursuing the Jirgagai process as a useful means for promoting dialogue and development.The Tripartite Military Commission mechanism has proven useful in enhancing coordination both at the strategic and tactical levels. However, we remain concerned about financing and arming of militants. Recent incursions in our territory by militants are a matter of serious concern. Pakistan wishes to see the tripartite mechanism further strengthened.More than 3 million Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan pose an additional security risk, often providing nurseries and sanctuaries to militants.On the regional plane, Pakistan will be hosting the 3rd Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan (RECCA) on 1-2 April 2009. We are in close touch with Afghan authorities and our international partners to make this conference focused and result-oriented. This event, we hope, will prove to be a milestone in assisting Afghanistan in its developmental efforts and forging greater regional cooperation.

Critical situations demand critical appraisals. This is an opportune moment to readjust our strategy on the basis of lessons learnt. Our way forward must be grounded in strict adherence to principles enshrined in the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign States and their peoples.It is our considered view that the future course of action to deal with this growing problem should incorporate the following essential elements:One: The international community must adopt a regional approach in resolving this problem which is essentially regional in nature. Only those solutions enjoying the support of regional countries would be sustainable.Two: This complex problem requires a multi-faceted, comprehensive and balanced approach. Over emphasis on military dimension has not proved fruitul. For lasting success of any endeavour, the people must assume ownership.Three: In the battle for hearts and minds, the power of persuasion must be stronger than the effects of coercion. An inclusive process must include dialogue and reconciliation.Four: A generous focus on reconstruction, development and social welfare with participation of all stakeholders. To attain durable security, the dynamic and logic of development must trump the dynamic and logic of force. The campaign against extremism will not be won in the battlefield but in classrooms and the mind of the people.Five: Drug money is a major source of terror-funding. There is a need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. Farmers growing opium will have to be provided alternate opportunities.Six: There is need for better coordination of international efforts. All disconnects and fragmentations, including within the international coalition and NATO must be addressed.Seven: An extensive sensitization campaign should be launched with the support of local communities to neutralize the impact and influence of militant ideologies and to correct negative perceptions that fuel extremism. Eight: Any lasting and sustainable solution must respect local customs, traditions, values and religious beliefs.

We know that the difficulties are complex and daunting, and the road ahead winding, bumpy and long. Yet these obstacles are not insurmountable. Pakistan welcomes the international community’s unwavering resolve to remain meaningfully and effectively engaged to help root out the menace of extremism and terrorism.Pakistan is a principal partner in this global compaign. Pakistan is determined to tide the difficulties with the support of its friends and allies. We will continue to strengthen our partnership with the international community. It is well within our capacity to harness our resources to defeat the common enemy. Together we can achieve lasting peace and stability and craft a better tomorrow for our coming generations. I Thank You.

Speaker: Gruevski, Nicola
Function: Prime Minister, Skopje
http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=254&

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 GRUEVSKI

Distinguished Chairman, Distinguished panelists, Ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be speaking today at the Munich Conference, surely the most important annual forum on security and foreign policy. Coming from the Republic of Macedonia - a country from the Western Balkans - I will try to give a specific contribution to our joint discussion, a view regarding the issues that are significant for the stability of my country and the region as a whole. I want to begin with a short discussion of where we have been, and the direction we must take in the future so that we - both individual states and institutions such as NATO and the E.U. can finally bring a permanent, lasting peace in what has been a volatile region of Europe. It is a tragic part of our past that the first and last wars of the 20th century both started in the Balkans. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to consolidate democratic gains that can usher in a new era of lasting peace, stable democracies and prosperity in an area that history, with the words of our Chairman today, had “otherwise reserved for instability, conflicts and great power rivalry.” We now have an opportunity to complete Europe, if all of us have the political will to take the final steps necessary for integrating the entirety of the Balkan region into Europe and Euro-Atlantic institutions. Thomas Mann, only one of the many great minds who lived in Munich, said that war is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace. The Macedonian people have never escaped from their problems. Rather, we have learned to face them. There is no doubt that the engagement of the international community in the country (through the key international factors, the first preventive mission in the UN history-UNPREDEP and OSCE) had a significant role in the prevention of spilling over of the wars from the rest of former Yugoslavia. The Republic of Macedonia has remained throughout this entire period, a stability factor in the region, playing a key role in the logistic and other kinds of support to the engagement of the international community in Kosovo during the 1999 crisis, which is today also present in the form of logistic support to the KFOR activities.

We have managed to overcome the 2001. If there were NATO small scale deployments as well as the first EU peacekeeping mission ever on our territory back then, there have been Macedonian military deployments in ISAF and ALTHEA since. Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means said President Ronald Reagan. Through the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement we devolved political power to local administrators and ensured that our national and local governments reflected our ethnic mix, developing a functional multiethnic democracy. The Republic of Macedonia passed and implemented strict anti-corruption laws and overhauled our military so that it could easily integrate itself into NATO’s infrastructure. Macedonians continue to seek membership in NATO and EU because it is a natural expression of our shared values, commitment to freedom and respect for individual rights and the rule of law. It is unfortunate that, despite meeting all NATO requirements and receiving recognition from NATO for our military, political, and social reforms, the Macedonian NATO invitation was placed on indefinite hold. The reason for leaving more than two million people outside NATO’s sphere of freedom, security and democracy? Our constitutional name. The assertion by Greece that the Republic of Macedonia threatens their national sovereignty is simply not true. We have changed our constitution and our national flag to meet their concerns and we remain committed to working with them on a compromise.
Undoubtedly it is correct to say that Europe thrives on its diversity said Chancellor Angela Merkel and concluded that the quality that enabled Europeans to make the most of diversity is tolerance. Europe's soul is tolerance. But is Europe’s diversity possible without freedom? How to explain to the Macedonian people that their entry in the European home, a home of diversity of identities, will cost them their freedom to express who they are? Will cost them their identity?

The real-world consequences of Greece’s objection to Republic of Macedonia run counter to strengthening regional security and stability and impede the effectiveness of NATO at a time when all our collective efforts need to be directed at confronting threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. A Macedonia in NATO will assist in the stabilization of Kosovo and make the alliance—including Greece—stronger and more secure.The security and stability of the Western Balkans clearly and undeniably lie in NATO and EU. As the Western Balkan region is coming out of the post-conflict stage on the way towards a sustainable development, the European and Euro-Atlantic integration is ever more considered a factor that connects the parties sharing a common goal. All countries in the region are, to a various extent, in a process of Euro-Atlantic integration. The clear Euro-Atlantic perspective of the countries from the region, the membership in NATO and EU, are an incentive for the stabilization and sustainable democratic development of these countries. There is a strong current against expansion of both NATO and the E.U. I ask that policymakers keep an open mind to greater membership and integration. Will it come with a cost? Is it difficult? Unquestionably, yes to both questions. However, what price can you place on peace, stability and an expansion of democratic values? On completing Europe? International attention to our region has faded as we focus on other areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. This is understandable. However, there is still unfinished business that once completed can serve to cement a permanent peace.

There are many challenges in the year ahead chief among them the implementation of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's six-point plan for EULEX deployment in Kosovo, With the words of President Barack Obama, if you are walking down the right path and you are willing to keep walking, eventually you will make progress. We in Macedonia will be working to build peace and continue with our economic and social reforms. I urge our friends gathered here for this conference to help press for renewed interest in the Balkans. Doing so will help Macedonia and our region take those final few steps towards greater integration into Europe and increased security in NATO.Thank you for your attention.